If a Rogers police officer's file gets requested under FOIA after a suspension, what gets released and what gets redacted, and does it matter if the requester wants the file just to harass the officer?
Subject
Whether the City of Rogers records custodian's decision to release Officer Guadalupe Rodriguez's personnel and evaluation records (with redactions) is consistent with the Arkansas FOIA.
Plain-English summary
Officer Rodriguez was the subject of a FOIA request: "the name of the officer suspended during the months of February through April 2025[,] along with all documents relating to the internal review, original incident report, and suspension." The City of Rogers custodian classified most records as employee evaluations, redacted those that didn't result in suspension or termination, and intended to release those that did, with the driver's license number redacted. The remaining records were classified as personnel records and intended for release.
Officer Rodriguez objected, and asked the AG to review. She also said she believed the requestor was seeking the records "to harass" her.
The AG ruled on five points:
1. Personnel records classification. Correct. The background forms Rodriguez completed when applying for employment are personnel records.
2. Employee evaluation classification. Correct. The records that detail performance/lack of performance and were created at the employer's behest are evaluation records.
3. Withholding pre-suspension/non-disciplinary evaluations. Correct. Without suspension or termination as the trigger, the four-part test fails on prong 1.
4. Releasing post-suspension/termination evaluations. Correct. Officer Rodriguez was terminated; the termination is administratively final; the records recount the reasons; and the public has a compelling interest in records of a law-enforcement officer's misconduct (the AG has consistently held this for officers, citing the public-trust position).
5. Redactions. The driver's license number was properly redacted. But the custodian failed to redact:
- Employee number (a personnel/identification number used for security functions, exempt under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(11))
- Date of birth (consistently treated as exempt personnel info)
- Home address (personal contact information of a public employee, exempt under § 25-19-105(b)(13))
- Personal cell phone number (same exemption)
The AG was explicit that he could not fully evaluate the redactions made because the custodian provided only the redacted copy, not an unredacted copy.
6. Requester motive. The AG addressed Officer Rodriguez's harassment concern in a footnote. The requester's intent and motives are "generally irrelevant" to whether public records must be disclosed. AG opinions cited: 2025-023, 2023-051, 2014-094.
What this means for you
Police officers facing FOIA requests for your records
If your file is being requested, the privacy interest you have under FOIA does not include a "this requester is going to harass me" exception. The AG has consistently held that the requester's motive is not a basis for withholding public records. If you have a true harassment situation (stalking, threats, criminal conduct), that's a law-enforcement matter, not a FOIA matter.
What you do get from FOIA: redaction of personal identifiers (driver's license, employee ID, date of birth, home address, personal cell phone, social security number, banking info, dependents). What you don't get: protection from records about your professional conduct that resulted in formal discipline.
If you've been suspended or terminated and the discipline is final, the records that "formed the basis" for the discipline are likely public, especially as a law-enforcement officer in a public-trust position. That's true even if the requester is hostile.
Police records custodians
This opinion gives you a checklist of items to redact when you release a personnel or evaluation record:
- Driver's license number
- Employee number / personnel identification numbers
- Date of birth
- Home address
- Personal cell phone number
- Personal email address (if not employer-issued)
- Social security number
- Marital status, dependents
- Banking information
- Net pay, withholdings, deductions
- Insurance coverage
- Tax info
Always provide unredacted copies to the AG when seeking review under § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i). The AG flagged inability to fully evaluate Rodriguez's redactions because only the redacted version was provided.
Police chiefs and command staff
When you suspend or terminate an officer, the underlying records (incident report, IA investigation, performance notice, suspension letter) become public once the discipline is final. Plan and document accordingly. Vague discipline letters that don't state the grounds may fail civil-service review even if they keep more out of FOIA.
FOIA requesters
You don't need to explain your motive. The AG has consistently held that motive is irrelevant. You can also expect personal identifiers to be redacted from any release.
If the agency tries to withhold a record that should be released, ask for review under § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i). Cite this opinion's clear statement: requester intent is generally irrelevant to disclosure analysis.
Municipal attorneys advising on FOIA responses
This opinion is a useful checklist for both classification and redaction. A common error: missing employee number, date of birth, and home address while properly handling SSN and driver's license. Build a redaction-checklist template that hits all the recurring fields, not just the obvious ones.
Common questions
Q: The requester told us they're going to use the records to embarrass the officer publicly. Doesn't that matter?
No, under settled Arkansas FOIA. AGOps. 2025-023, 2023-051, 2014-094 (cited in this opinion's footnote 1) all hold that requester motive is generally irrelevant. The records are public or they're not, and that determination doesn't depend on what the requester plans to do.
Q: Why is the employee number redacted but the gross salary is public?
Employee numbers (or other personnel/ID numbers) get exemption under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(11) because they're used for computer-security functions. Releasing them creates a security risk. Gross salary doesn't have that risk and is public for state and municipal employees.
Q: The officer was disciplined a year ago. Are the records still public?
If the discipline (suspension or termination) is administratively final and the records formed the basis, yes. Time alone doesn't move records out of the FOIA-disclosable category.
Q: I'm a member of the public looking for these records. How do I file?
File a FOIA request with the City of Rogers (or whatever municipality employs the officer). Specify the records you want by date range or description. The custodian must respond within three working days under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(e).
Q: My personal cell phone is technically a "work phone" because I take calls on it. Is it still personal?
Probably depends on how it's documented. If it's employer-issued, the number is the employer's, not yours, and the privacy interest is lower. If it's your personal device that you also use for work, the AG opinions (and § 25-19-105(b)(13)) treat it as personal contact information of a public employee, exempt from disclosure.
Q: We provided only the redacted version to the AG and got a partial answer. What now?
Provide the unredacted version and ask for follow-up review. Under § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) the review process contemplates the AG seeing both versions. The AG explicitly couldn't say whether the redactions matched the underlying content because only the redacted version was provided.
Background and statutory framework
The Arkansas FOIA classifies employee records into personnel records (A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12), open with privacy redactions) and evaluation records (A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1), open only when the four-part test is met).
Personnel-record disclosure follows the Young v. Rice balancing test: greater-than-minimal privacy interest, weighed against public interest, with thumb on the scale for disclosure. Evaluation-record disclosure requires (1) suspension/termination, (2) finality, (3) relevance, (4) compelling public interest.
The compelling-public-interest factor for law enforcement is treated as almost always present because of the "significant public trust" investment officers carry. AGOp. 2024-021 collected the prior opinions on this point.
Field-level redactions:
- Personal contact information of public employees: § 25-19-105(b)(13) (personal phone numbers, email addresses, home addresses)
- Computer-security/personal identification numbers: § 25-19-105(b)(11)
- Discrete privacy fields under § 25-19-105(b)(12): marital status, dependents, dates of birth, social security numbers, driver's license numbers, insurance, tax info, payroll deductions, net pay, banking info, and other "intimate financial detail"
Requester motive: the AG has consistently held this is irrelevant. AGOps. 2025-023, 2023-051, 2014-094 are the recent statements of the rule.
The four-part test traces from A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1) and AGOp. 2008-065. Constructive termination doctrine: AGOps. 2024-045, 2023-077, 2012-019, 2011-084.
Citations
- A.C.A. § 25-19-103(7)(A) (definition of public record)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(11) (computer-security/personal identification numbers)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12) (personnel records / clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(13) (personal contact information of public employees)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1) (four-part test for evaluation records)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (right to AG review)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(f) (redaction of exempt portions)
- Legislative Joint Auditing Committee v. Woosley, 291 Ark. 89, 722 S.W.2d 581 (1987)
- Harrill & Sutter, PLLC v. Farrar, 2012 Ark. 180, 402 S.W.3d 511
- Pulaski County v. Ark. Democrat-Gazette, Inc., 370 Ark. 435, 260 S.W.3d 718 (2007)
- Thomas v. Hall, 2012 Ark. 66, 399 S.W.3d 387
- Davis v. Van Buren School District, 2019 Ark. App. 466, 572 S.W.3d 466
- Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992)
- Stilley v. McBride, 332 Ark. 306, 965 S.W.2d 125 (1998)
- AGOps. 2025-023, 2023-051, 2014-094 (requester motive irrelevant)
- AGOp. 2024-021 (law-enforcement officers and significant public trust)
- AGOp. 2007-025 (driver's license number redaction)
Source
Original opinion text
Opinion No. 2025-034
May 19, 2025
Guadalupe Rodriguez
Via email only: [email protected]
Dear Officer Rodriguez:
You have requested an opinion from this office regarding the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Your request, which is made as the subject of the records, is based on A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i).
You indicate that the City of Rogers received a FOIA request for "the name of the officer suspended during the months of February through April 2025[,] along with all documents relating to the internal review, original incident report, and suspension." The records custodian has classified most of the records as employee evaluations. The custodian has redacted the employee evaluations that did not result in suspension or termination, and the custodian intends to release the employee evaluations that resulted in suspension or termination. The custodian has classified the remaining records as personnel records. The custodian intends to redact your driver's license number from the records.
The custodian has provided me with a redacted copy of the records he intends to release but not an unredacted copy. You object to the release of the records because you believe the requestor is seeking them to harass you. (The objection concerning why the requestor is making a FOIA request or what the requestor intends to do with the requested documents is not a sufficient basis for the custodian to withhold the records from disclosure. This Office has consistently opined that, under the FOIA, the requester's intent and motives are generally irrelevant when determining whether public records must be disclosed. E.g., Ark. Att'y Gen. Ops. 2025-023, 2023-051, 2014-094.)
You ask if the custodian's decisions are consistent with the FOIA.
RESPONSE
In my opinion, the custodian has correctly classified the personnel records and has properly redacted your driver's license number. But the custodian's decision not to redact your employee number, date of birth, address, and cell phone number is inconsistent with the FOIA.
In addition, the custodian has properly classified the employee-evaluation records. The custodian's decision to withhold the employee evaluations that did not result in your suspension or termination is consistent with the FOIA. Similarly, the custodian's decision to disclose the employee evaluations that did result in suspension or termination is consistent with the FOIA. The four-part test for release of employee-evaluation records appears to be met.
DISCUSSION
- General rules. A document must be disclosed in response to a FOIA request if (1) the request was directed to an entity subject to the FOIA, (2) the requested document is a public record, and (3) no exceptions allow the document to be withheld.
The first two elements appear to be met. The request was made to the City of Rogers, a public entity subject to the FOIA. And the records at issue appear to be public records. Because these records are held by a public entity, they are presumed to be public records, although that presumption is rebuttable. I have no information to suggest that the presumption can be rebutted here, so I will focus on whether any exceptions prevent the documents' disclosure.
For FOIA purposes, documents in a public employee's file can usually be divided into two mutually exclusive groups: "personnel records" and "employee evaluation or job performance records." Personnel records are records that pertain to an individual employee that were not created by or at the behest of the employer to evaluate the employee. Employee evaluation and job-performance records, on the other hand, are records (1) created by or at the behest of the employer (2) to evaluate the employee (3) that detail the employee's performance or lack of performance on the job.
The test for whether these two types of documents may be released differs significantly. When reviewing documents to determine whether to release under the FOIA, the custodian must first decide whether a record meets the definition of either a "personnel record" or an "employment evaluation or job performance record" and then apply the appropriate test for that record to determine whether the record should be release under the FOIA.
-
Personnel records. A personnel record is open to public inspection except "to the extent that disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." (Discussion of Young v. Rice balancing test, with thumb on the scale for disclosure, and discrete-field redactions including personal contact information.)
-
Employee-evaluation records. The second relevant exception is for "employee evaluation or job performance records," which are records (1) created by or at the behest of the employer (2) to evaluate the employee (3) that detail the employee's performance or lack of performance on the job. "This exception includes records generated while investigating allegations of employee misconduct that detail incidents that gave rise to an allegation of misconduct."
If a document qualifies as an employee-evaluation record, the document cannot be released unless all the following elements have been met:
- The employee was suspended or terminated (i.e., level of discipline);
- There has been a final administrative resolution of the suspension or termination proceeding (i.e., finality);
- The records in question formed a basis for the decision made in that proceeding to suspend or terminate the employee (i.e., relevance); and
- The public has a compelling interest in the disclosure of the records in question (i.e., compelling interest).
(Discussion of compelling-public-interest factors as developed by AG opinions and Watkins commentary.)
-
Classification and disclosure of personnel records. "Personnel records" encompass many types of information found in a personnel file: job titles, salary and payroll records, change-of-status records, pension and benefit records, records of sick leave and vacation time, requests for voluntary demotion, background investigations, and photographs of the employee. Here, the only personnel records the custodian intends to release are background forms you completed to apply for employment with the police department. The custodian has redacted a significant portion of these forms, so I cannot determine if the redacted information is of a private or intimate nature such that an employee's privacy interest outweighs the public's interest in the record. Otherwise, the custodian's decision to release these documents is consistent with the FOIA.
-
Classification and disclosure of employee evaluations. These records are best classified as employee evaluations because they were created by the employer to evaluate you, and they detail your performance or lack of performance on the job. The custodian's decision to withhold the employee evaluations that did not result in suspension or termination is consistent with the FOIA. Conversely, the custodian's decision to release the employee evaluations that resulted in suspension or termination is also consistent with the FOIA. The four-part test for release of those employee-evaluation records appears to be met: (1) you were terminated; (2) that termination is administratively final; (3) the records recount the reasons for the termination; and (4) because law-enforcement officers are invested with a significant public trust, there is usually a compelling public interest in records that reflect violations of office policy. (As this office has consistently opined, law-enforcement officers are invested with a significant public trust, so there is usually a compelling public interest in records, such as these, that reflect violations of office policy.)
-
Redactions. The custodian has properly identified that some discrete pieces of information contained in the records are of a personal or intimate nature and have a greater than minimal privacy interest. The redacted information is your driver's license number. The custodian has properly determined that disclosure of this information would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. So the custodian's decision to redact that information is consistent with the FOIA.
But the custodian has failed to redact your employee number, date of birth, home address, and cell phone number. This information is either your personal contact information or information that is of a personal or intimate nature so that it has a greater than minimal privacy interest. The custodian's decision not to redact this information is inconsistent with the FOIA.
Assistant Attorney General Jodie Keener prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.
Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General