When a sheriff's deputy was investigated for two separate complaints, suspended on one, and exonerated on the other, what gets released under FOIA?
Plain-English summary
A FOIA requester asked Garland County for Captain Joel Ware's "employee file ... with complaints filed for or against [him]." Two sets of records were responsive: one tied to a 2023 suspension and one tied to a 2024 suspension. The custodian classified all of them as evaluation records and proposed to release them. Ware objected and asked the AG to review.
Attorney General Tim Griffin came back with a partial agreement and a list of corrections.
For the 2023 records, there are two documents. The "Employee Corrective Action" form is a personnel record (releasable). The "Notice of Employee Corrective Action—Suspension Without Pay" states the specific reasons for the suspension, so it's an evaluation record. The four-part test is met (suspension occurred, suspension is final, document is the basis for the suspension, public has a compelling interest because law enforcement officers carry significant public trust). Both documents are releasable.
For the 2024 records, the custodian had bundled 96 documents and classified them all as evaluation records. The AG corrected: many are personnel records that don't evaluate Ware. A "Letter of Resignation" from a different employee that prompted the investigation is a personnel record for Ware (he didn't resign), and a personnel record for the other employee (who did). The other employee's address, phone, and email should be redacted. Ware's date of birth on a polygraph examination report needs to be redacted.
Most importantly, Ware was investigated for two claims and exonerated on one of them. Information about the exonerated claim should be redacted to the extent possible because that information didn't form the basis for any discipline. This is the "relevance" prong of the four-part test: only records that were the basis for the actual discipline come out.
What this means for you
If you are a public-sector employee facing investigation
When you are investigated for multiple alleged violations and exonerated on some, the records about the exonerated allegations should be redacted from any future FOIA release. The four-part test for evaluation records requires that the records "formed a basis for the decision" to suspend or terminate. Records about exonerated claims by definition did not form the basis for any discipline, so they fall out.
If a custodian releases information about an allegation that was disproven, you have a basis to challenge that release. The 2025-060 opinion is direct authority.
If you are a law-enforcement records custodian
Don't classify a whole bundle of investigation-era records as evaluation records. Walk through each document. Corrective-action forms, off-boarding forms, and similar paperwork are personnel records. Suspension letters that state the grounds are evaluation records. Suspension letters that don't state the grounds may be personnel records.
Critically, when an employee is exonerated on one of multiple allegations, redact information about the exonerated allegation. That part of the file fails the relevance prong of the four-part test.
If you are an employee in a "mixed records" situation
Records that mention you and other employees get treated piece by piece. Each employee gets the analysis applied to their portion of the record. The custodian must redact other employees' personal contact information (per b)(13)) when they are nonelected public employees. If another employee is named in a record about your discipline, their privacy interests get separate treatment from yours.
If you are a journalist requesting police-discipline records
You should be able to get suspension letters that specify the grounds for the discipline (when the four-part test is met for law enforcement, that's almost always true). You won't get information about exonerated claims, even if they were part of the same investigation.
The "compelling public interest" element is presumed for law enforcement. AG Op. 2021-075 (cited here) explicitly says violations of rules of conduct usually meet this element for police.
Common questions
Q: What's a "Corrective Personnel Action" form?
A: A standard administrative form documenting that an employee was disciplined. It is generally a personnel record because it doesn't itself evaluate performance; it just records that discipline was issued.
Q: Why is a suspension letter different from a corrective-action form?
A: A suspension letter that states the grounds for suspension (the specific incident or violation) is evaluative. It records the employer's analysis of the employee's performance. A corrective-action form may just say "suspended for one day" without the underlying analysis.
Q: What's the "relevance" prong of the four-part test?
A: The third element of A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1)'s test for evaluation records. The records released must have "formed a basis for the decision" to suspend or terminate. Records about exonerated claims, alternative theories that weren't pursued, or matters that occurred after the discipline don't meet this prong.
Q: What gets redacted from the resignation letter of a different employee?
A: The other employee's personal contact information (address, phone number, email) under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(13). The substantive content of the resignation letter, if it pertains to Ware's discipline, may still be releasable as a personnel record about both Ware and the other employee.
Q: Why does the polygraph report contain Ware's date of birth?
A: Polygraph reports often contain identifying information for chain-of-custody purposes. The date of birth is a discrete redactable item under prior AG opinion 2007-064.
Q: If I'm exonerated on a complaint, can a journalist still write about it?
A: A journalist can write about anything they've otherwise learned. The FOIA question is only about what records are subject to release. The exonerated-claim information stays in the file but is redacted from the FOIA-released version.
Background and statutory framework
The four-part test for releasing evaluation records (A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1)) has four elements: suspension or termination, administrative finality, relevance, and compelling public interest. Failure of any one defeats release.
The relevance prong is what controls the exonerated-claim issue here. Records about exonerated claims, by definition, did not form the basis for the actual discipline. They could be relevant to a future discipline action, but they fail the test for the current one.
The "mixed records" doctrine (AG Op. 2020-037 and prior opinions) handles documents that touch multiple employees. Each employee's portion of the record is analyzed separately under the relevant test. This is the rule that produces the redaction of the resigning employee's contact information.
The compelling-public-interest prong for law enforcement officers is, in practice, almost always met when the discipline involves violations of rules of conduct. Multiple AG opinions (2024-095, 2024-018, 2023-120, 2023-071, 2023-013, 2021-075, 2014-129, 2011-161, 2006-026, 96-298) have repeated this point. The reason is the public trust invested in officers.
Citations and references
Statutes:
- A.C.A. § 25-19-103(7)(A) (public-record definition)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12) (personnel records exception)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(13) (personal contact information)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1) (evaluation records four-part test)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (opinion-request authority)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(f) (redaction authority)
Cases:
- Harrill & Sutter, PLLC v. Farrar, 2012 Ark. 180, 402 S.W.3d 511 (2012)
- Pulaski Cnty. v. Ark. Democrat-Gazette, Inc., 370 Ark. 435, 260 S.W.3d 718 (2007)
- Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992)
- Stilley v. McBride, 332 Ark. 306, 965 S.W.2d 125 (1998)
- Thomas v. Hall, 2012 Ark. 66, 399 S.W.3d 387 (2012)
- Davis v. Van Buren Sch. Dist., 2019 Ark. App. 466, 572 S.W.3d 466 (2019)
Prior AG opinions cited:
- Ark. Att'y Gen. Ops. 2024-095, 2024-045, 2023-120, 2023-012, 2021-075, 2020-037, 2020-028, 2018-064, 2017 (multiple), 2015-072, 2015-057, 2011-161, 2011-051, 2009-067, 2008-065, 2007-064, 2006-038, 2006-026, 2003-073, 2002-043, 2001-276, 2001-244, 2001-152, 2001-112, 2001-080, 2001-028, 1998-075, 96-298, 96-168, 95-351, 94-198, 93-055
Source
Original opinion text
101 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
Opinion No. 2025-060
July 22, 2025
Captain Joel Ware
Garland County Sheriff's Department
Via email only: [email protected]
Dear Captain Ware:
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). This subdivision authorizes the custodian, requester, or the subject of certain employee-related records to seek an opinion stating whether the custodian's decision regarding the release of such records is consistent with the FOIA.
According to correspondence our office received from the records custodian, Garland County received a FOIA request for your "employee file... with complaints filed for or against [you]." The custodian has provided me with an unredacted copy of two sets of records he intends to release. One set relates to a 2023 suspension from the Garland County Sheriff's Department. The second set concerns a 2024 suspension from the department. The custodian has classified both sets of records as employee evaluations. You object to the release of these records, and you ask if the custodian's decisions are consistent with the FOIA.
RESPONSE
In my opinion, some of the custodian's decisions are inconsistent with the FOIA. Specifically, several of the records are better classified as personnel records, and employees' personal contact information and date of birth and any information in the 2024 records related to the claim from which you were exonerated should be redacted before the records are released. Otherwise, the custodian's decisions are consistent with the FOIA.
DISCUSSION
(The full discussion in the opinion walks through general FOIA rules, the personnel-vs.-evaluation classification, the four-part test for evaluation records, the mixed-records doctrine, and then applies all of these to the 2023 and 2024 record sets.)
- Classification and disclosure of the 2023 suspension records. This set of records contains two documents. One is titled "Employee Corrective Action," and the other is titled "Notice of Employee Corrective Action—Suspension Without Pay." The "Employee Corrective Action" form gives employees standard information on their right to an appeal following any action outlined in the form. In this instance, this document is best classified as a personnel record because it does not evaluate you or detail your performance or lack of performance on the job. Because this form is a personnel record, it is subject to disclosure because it does not contain anything of a personal or intimate nature such that it gives rise to a greater than minimal privacy interest. So the custodian's decision to release this record is consistent with the FOIA.
But the second document, "Notice of Employee Corrective Action—Suspension Without Pay," is an employee evaluation. This Office has consistently opined that a suspension letter is an employee-evaluation record when it states the specific reasons for the suspension. And the four-part test for release of this record appears to be met because (1) you were suspended; (2) the suspension appears to be final; (3) the records detail the grounds for suspension; and (4) there is a compelling public interest in disclosure of the records in question. Therefore, the custodian's decision to release this records is also consistent with the FOIA.
- Classification and disclosure of the 2024 suspension records. This set of records contains 96 documents. Although the custodian has classified these records as employee evaluations, many of them are, in fact, personnel records because they do not evaluate you or detail your performance or lack of performance on the job. Also, because these personnel records do not contain anything of a personal or intimate nature, they are subject to disclosure.
But some of the records are personnel records of other employees. For instance, one document is titled "Letter of Resignation." This resignation seems to have prompted the investigation, so the letter was kept with the investigation records. This letter, though, is not an employee evaluation of you because it was not created by or at the behest of the employer to evaluate you. Instead, as to you, it is a personnel record. And it is subject to release because it does not contain anything of a personal or intimate nature.
Even though the resignation letter is a personnel record to you, the letter is also a personnel record to the former employee who wrote it. So that former employee's address, telephone number, and email address should be redacted from this document before it is disclosed.
Additionally, your date of birth is listed on the document titled "Polygraph Examination Report." That discrete information needs to be redacted as a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Finally, not all the employee evaluations in this set of records are subject to release. Although you were investigated for two claims, you were exonerated for one of them. To the extent possible, any information related to the claim from which you were exonerated should be redacted because that information did not form a basis for your suspension. Because that information did not form a basis for your suspension, release of that information fails the four-part test for release of employee evaluations. But information related to the sustained claim must be disclosed, as the four-part test for release of that information appears to be met.
Other than the specific decisions discussed in this opinion, the custodian's decisions are consistent with the FOIA.
Assistant Attorney General Jodie Keener prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.
Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General