Is a 2013 suspension letter (with a written reprimand inside) and a birth certificate from a Pine Bluff officer's personnel file releasable under FOIA?
Plain-English summary
The Pine Bluff Police Department received a FOIA request for Sergeant William Wiegand's personnel records. The custodian planned to release the records, including a 2013 suspension letter and a birth certificate. Wiegand objected to those two items and asked the AG to review.
Attorney General Tim Griffin partially agreed with the custodian. Two distinct calls.
The 2013 suspension letter dealt with two complaints. One was sustained and resulted in a one-day suspension. The other was not sustained but produced a written reprimand. The letter laid out the specific reasons for the suspension, which makes the suspension portion an evaluation record. The four-part test is met:
- Discipline (suspension) occurred
- Twelve years have passed, so the discipline is administratively final
- The records detail the grounds for suspension (relevance)
- Compelling public interest is presumed for law enforcement misconduct
But the written-reprimand portion of the letter is different. The reprimand is itself a separate evaluation record (per multiple AG opinions, written reprimands and letters of caution are evaluation records). Because the reprimand did not result in suspension or termination, the four-part test fails for the reprimand. So the reprimand information must be redacted from the released letter.
The birth certificate is a personnel record. Birth certificates kept in employee personnel files are subject to release under prior AG opinions. But the date of birth and the parents' names must be redacted (date of birth under prior opinions and parents' names under prior opinions about family/personal information).
The AG didn't have the actual birth certificate to review, so he couldn't tell whether the custodian's specific redactions were correct.
What this means for you
If you are a public-sector employee
Your suspension records that name specific reasons for the discipline can become public if the suspension is final and the public-interest element is met (which is almost automatic for law enforcement). The age of the discipline matters: by twelve years, finality is undisputed.
A "written reprimand" embedded in the same letter is treated separately. If the reprimand stands alone (no resulting suspension or termination), it stays closed.
If you are a records custodian
When a single document contains both releasable and non-releasable content (a suspension letter that also contains an unrelated written reprimand), don't release the document as a whole. Redact the non-releasable part.
For birth certificates specifically: the document itself is releasable, but the date of birth (under AG Op. 2007-064) and parents' names (under AG Ops. 2011-081, 2008-053) must be redacted before release.
If you are a journalist requesting old discipline records
Long-old suspension letters become administratively final by the simple passage of time. The four-part test that would have blocked release immediately after the discipline becomes easier to satisfy as time passes. A 2013 suspension letter from a 2025 FOIA request is likely releasable because the appeal window closed long ago.
But pieces inside that document that didn't tie to a suspension or termination (like a separate written reprimand) stay closed.
If you are an officer reviewing your own file
Your file has different categories of records. Old evaluations and suspension letters tied to specific discipline are likely releasable to the public. Written reprimands, letters of caution, and other lesser discipline that didn't result in suspension or termination stay closed even years later. The classification matters even within the same letter.
Common questions
Q: Why is a written reprimand treated as an evaluation record?
A: Multiple prior AG opinions (2009-146, 2008-135, 1997-261, 1993-105, 1992-231, 1991-324) classify written reprimands and letters of caution as evaluation records because they are created by the employer to evaluate the employee's performance and they detail what the employee did wrong.
Q: Why doesn't the four-part test apply to the reprimand if it's part of a letter that also contains a sustained suspension?
A: Because the reprimand was for a different complaint that wasn't sustained as a suspension. The four-part test asks whether the records "formed a basis for the decision" to suspend or terminate. The reprimand portion was not the basis for any suspension or termination, so it fails the test.
Q: What's a "letter of caution"?
A: A milder form of discipline or feedback than a written reprimand. AG opinions treat them similarly: they are evaluation records, and they are not releasable unless the four-part test is met.
Q: Why is the date of birth on the birth certificate redacted but not the substantive content?
A: AG Op. 2007-064 holds that public employees' dates of birth give rise to a privacy interest sufficient to require redaction. The certificate's other content (the holder is the employee, the certificate is on file) doesn't give rise to similar privacy concerns.
Q: What about the parents' names?
A: Multiple AG opinions (e.g., AG Op. 2018-084) treat names of family members as private under the personnel-records balancing test, especially when they would identify minors or relatives.
Q: How long does it take for a discipline to become administratively final?
A: It depends on the agency's appeal procedures. Most internal appeals run a few weeks to a few months. A discipline that is twelve years old is well past any plausible appeal window.
Background and statutory framework
The four-part test for evaluation records (A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1)) is the controlling rule. Each element must be satisfied for release. Time often matters most for finality: an old discipline becomes final by the passage of time alone, even if formal appeal windows have not been documented.
The Arkansas FOIA's treatment of written reprimands has been settled for decades. Reprimands are evaluation records because they document the employee's failure to meet performance standards and are created at the employer's behest. They are not released unless the four-part test is met for them, separately from any other discipline they may accompany.
Birth certificates kept in personnel files (often as proof of age, citizenship, or parental information for benefits purposes) are public records under FOIA but require redaction of specific elements. The document itself is not exempt; the discrete elements within it are.
Citations and references
Statutes:
- A.C.A. § 25-19-103(7)(A) (public-record definition)
- 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)
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)
Prior AG opinions cited:
- Ark. Att'y Gen. Ops. 2023-081, 2023-077, 2023-071, 2023-069, 2023-013, 2016-104, 2015-053, 2014-129, 2011-081, 2009-146, 2008-135, 2008-065, 2008-053, 2006-026, 2005-095, 2001-276, 2001-244, 1998-075, 1997-261, 1997-177, 97-368, 1993-105, 1992-231, 1991-324
Source
Original opinion text
101 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
Opinion No. 2025-061
July 22, 2025
Sergeant William Wiegand
Pine Bluff Police Department
Sent via email only: [email protected]
Dear Sergeant Wiegand:
You have requested an opinion from this Office concerning the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Your request is made as the subject of the personnel and employee-evaluation records under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i).
You indicate that the Pine Bluff Police Department has received a FOIA request regarding your personnel records. The custodian has indicated they intend to release those records. You object to the release of two records, a suspension letter and a copy of your birth certificate. You have provided an unredacted copy of the suspension letter. But I have not been provided a copy of the birth certificate. You ask if the custodian's decision to release those records is consistent with the FOIA.
RESPONSE
In my opinion, the custodian's decision to release the suspension letter is partially consistent with the FOIA. The letter should be released but the written reprimand contained in the letter should be redacted. Birth certificates held in an employee's personnel files should be released. But because I was not provided a copy of the birth certificate, I cannot opine on whether redactions made to it are consistent with the FOIA.
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 Pine Bluff Police Department, which is 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 this presumption is rebuttable. Given that I have no information to suggest that the presumption can be rebutted here, I will focus on whether any exemptions prevent the disclosure of the documents.
For purposes of the FOIA, employees' personnel files normally contain two distinct groups of records: "personnel records" and "employee-evaluation or job-performance records." The test for whether these two types of documents may be released differs significantly. Thus, the custodian must first decide whether a record meets the definition of either a "personnel record" or an "employee-evaluation or job-performance record" and then apply the appropriate test for that record to determine whether the record should be released under the FOIA.
-
Birth certificate. Birth certificates held by an employer in employee files are personnel records subject to release under the FOIA, provided that the employee's date of birth and the names of the parents are redacted. But since I have not been given a copy of the birth certificate to review, I cannot opine on whether its redactions are consistent with the FOIA. The custodian should review and ensure that the applicable date of birth and the names of parents are redacted before release.
-
Suspension letter. Suspension letters may qualify as personnel records or an evaluation depending on the letter's contents. This Office has consistently opined that a suspension letter qualifies as a personnel record when the letter does not specify the grounds for suspension. On the other hand, this Office has consistently opined that a suspension letter qualifies as an evaluation record when that letter does specify the grounds for the suspension.
3.1. November 27, 2013 letter. The letter you provided is a one-page letter dated November 27, 2013, detailing disciplinary findings regarding two separate complaints. One complaint had findings that were not sustained, while the other had findings that were sustained, resulting in suspension. The letter provides the specific reasons for the suspension, and therefore is considered an evaluation record. Employee-evaluation or job-performance records cannot be released unless all the following elements have been met:
- The employee was suspended or terminated;
- There has been a final administrative resolution of the suspension or termination proceeding;
- The records in question formed a basis for the decision made in that proceeding to suspend or terminate the employee; and
- The public has a compelling interest in the disclosure of the records in question.
Here, all the elements are met. One, there was a suspension. Two, the decision was administratively final, as it was issued more than twelve years ago, and any administrative appeals period has long passed. Three, the letter is relevant to the suspension because it details the grounds for the suspension. Fourth, the public has a compelling interest in the disclosure of the record because, 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 the record, such as this one, that reflects a violation of office policy.
3.2. Written reprimand. The letter also contains a written reprimand. This Office has consistently opined that employee evaluations and job-performance records include "written reprimands... [and] letters of caution." Therefore, the written-reprimand cannot be released unless the four-element test has been met. As the written reprimand did not result in a suspension or termination, it does not meet the requirements for disclosure. As such, information related to the written reprimand must be redacted from the letter prior to its release.
Assistant Attorney General Justin Hughes prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.
Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General