Can someone get an internal-affairs file from a sheriff's office under FOIA, when the investigation didn't result in any discipline?

Plain-English summary

The Washington County Sheriff's Office withheld an internal investigation file because no employee was suspended or terminated. The Attorney General agreed as to the investigation memoranda, interviews, notices, and an office-created Citizen Complaint Form. They were employer-generated evaluation records and the discipline condition for release was not met. He disagreed about a signed employee-handbook memorandum in the same file: it was a personnel record without redactable information and should be released.

The complaint's origin matters. An unsolicited complaint made by someone outside the employer remains a personnel record even after an agency investigation. Here, the form was completed by a sheriff's office employee, recorded third-party phone complaints, and included that employee's investigation. The Attorney General classified this form as an evaluation record because it was generated in connection with the employer's inquiry. The later investigation did not transform the original outside complaint into an evaluation record.

What this means for you

If you are a records custodian

Review each document in an investigation file separately. Release the signed handbook memorandum identified here. Withhold the employer-generated investigation records where no suspension or termination occurred. For a complaint, distinguish the outsider's original submission from a form or report created by staff to investigate it.

If you filed a complaint

Your unsolicited written complaint does not change category merely because the agency investigates. A separate form or report that agency employees create during the inquiry may be an evaluation record with a different release test.

If you request an internal affairs file

A no-discipline outcome prevents release of employer-created evaluation records under the first condition of the four-part test. It does not justify withholding unrelated personnel records merely because they are stored in the same file.

Common questions

Does an investigation turn an unsolicited citizen complaint into an evaluation record? No. The opinion expressly says a later investigation does not transform an outside complaint. The agency-created Citizen Complaint Form here was a different record.

Why was the form withheld?
It appeared to have been created by a sheriff's office employee in the course of investigating two complaints. No employee was suspended or terminated, so the evaluation-record release test was not met.

Why was the handbook memorandum released?
It was an administrative personnel record, not an assessment of job performance, and the Attorney General found no information in it requiring redaction.

Background and statutory framework

A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1) requires suspension or termination, administrative finality, relevance, and a compelling public interest before an employee evaluation record can be released. Personnel records use the different privacy rule in § 25-19-105(b)(12). The opinion applies those tests to individual records inside one investigation file.

Source

• Official opinion search: https://arkansasag.gov/divisions/opinions-foia/attorney-general-opinions-search/ (Opinion No. 2025-063; PDF consulted for full text and footnotes).

Original opinion text

TIM GRIFFIN
ATTORNEY GENERAL

Opinion No. 2025-063

July 24, 2025

Sheriff Jay Cantrell
Washington County Sheriff
1155 W. Clydesdale Drive
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701

Via email only: [email protected]

Daniel L. Ingram, Attorney
c/o Kory Weathers
183 W. Main Street
Farmington, Arkansas 72730

Via email only: [email protected]

Dear Sheriff Cantrell and Mr. Ingram:

You have requested an opinion from this Office regarding the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).1 Sheriff Cantrell, your request is made as the custodian of records, and Mr. Ingram, your request is made on behalf of the subject of records. Both requests are based on A.C.A.
§ 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i), which 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.

You note that someone has requested a copy of an internal investigation conducted by the Washington County Sheriff’s Office.

The custodian has classified an internal investigation file in its entirety as an “employee- evaluation” record and has decided to withhold it from release. In applying the test for release, the custodian determined that the internal investigation file “fail[ed] the first of the four-prong test” in

1
Both requests include additional questions that are outside the scope of my review under A.C.A.
§ 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i). I only review whether the custodian’s “decision is consistent” with the FOIA. See id.

BOB R. BROOKS JR. JUSTICE BUILDING
101 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201

Sheriff Jay Cantrell and Mr. Daniel L. Ingram
Opinion No. 2025-063
Page 2

that no employee was suspended or terminated because of the investigation. The subject of the records agrees with the decision to withhold the entire internal investigation file.

You both have provided the same copies of what is described as an “internal investigation file,”2 which includes multiple memorandums concerning the investigation of employee conduct; a “Citizen Complaint Form”; investigative reports; interviews; a copy of a signed employee handbook memorandum; multiple investigative “Garrity Notices”; and multiple “Washington County Sheriff’s Office Investigation” records.

RESPONSE

The custodian’s decision to withhold the records is partially correct under the FOIA. While most of the records should be withheld, the copy of a signed employee handbook memorandum is best classified as a personnel record subject to release.

DISCUSSION

1. General rules. A document must be released in response to a FOIA request if all three of the
   following elements are met. First, the FOIA request must be directed to an entity subject to the FOIA.3 Second, the requested document must constitute a public record.4 Third, the document must not be subject to an exemption.5

The first two elements appear to be met here. The request was made to the Washington County Sheriff’s Office, which is a public entity subject to the FOIA.6 And the records at issue appear to be public records.7 Because these records are held by a public entity, they are presumed to be public records,8 although that presumption is rebuttable.9 I have no information, however, to

2
The custodian also provided unredacted copies.
3
Legis. Joint Auditing Comm. v. Woosley, 291 Ark. 89, 91, 722 S.W.2d 581, 582 (1987).
4
Id.
5
Id.
6
See, e.g., A.C.A. § 25-19-103(7)(A) (including “a public official or employee” or “a governmental agency”).
7
The FOIA defines public records as “writings, recorded sounds, films, tapes, electronic or computer-based information, or data compilations in any medium, required by law to be kept or otherwise kept, and that constitute a record of the performance or lack of performance of official functions … carried out by a public official or employee.” A.C.A. § 25-19-103(7)(A). 8 Id.
9
See Pulaski Cnty. v. Ark. Democrat-Gazette, Inc., 370 Ark. 435, 440–41, 260 S.W.3d 718, 722 (2007) (“[T]he presumption of public record status established by the FOIA can be rebutted if the records do not otherwise fall within the definition found in the first sentence, i.e., if they do not ‘constitute a record of the performance or lack of performance of official functions.’” (quoting Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2005-095)).

Sheriff Jay Cantrell and Mr. Daniel L. Ingram
Opinion No. 2025-063
Page 3

suggest that the presumption can be rebutted, and I will thus turn to whether any exemptions prevent the documents’ release.

For purposes of the FOIA, employees’ personnel files10 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. 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 “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.

2. Employee handbook memorandum. The copy of a signed employee handbook memorandum
   is a personnel record subject to release under the FOIA.11

Even if a document, when considered as a whole, meets the test for disclosure, it may contain pieces of information that must be redacted, such as personal contact information of public employees (including personal phone numbers, email addresses, and home addresses),12 employee personnel numbers or identification codes;13 marital status of public employees;14 dates of birth of public employees;15 social security numbers;16 driver’s license numbers;17 insurance coverage;18 tax information or withholdings;19 payroll deductions;20 names of children, spouses, and ex-

10
“Personnel files” are not referenced in the FOIA but typically includes the following documents: employment applications; school transcripts; payroll-related documents such as information about reclassifications, promotions, or demotions; transfer records; health- and life-insurance forms; performance evaluations; recommendation letters; disciplinary-action records; requests for leave-without-pay; certificates of advanced training or education; and legal documents such as subpoenas. E.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2016-104, 97-368; John J. Watkins et al., The Arkansas Freedom of Information Act 203–04 (6th ed. 2017). 11 See, e.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2024-074, 2002-326.
12
A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(13).
13
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2022-032, 2014-094, 2007-070. Public employee personnel numbers are exempt from disclosure because “these numbers presumably provide access to computerized data, and records containing “personal identification numbers” used for computer security functions are specifically exempt from disclosure under the FOIA.” Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2022-032; see also A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(11). 14 Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2001-080.
15
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2007-064.
16
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2006-035, 2003-153.
17
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2007-025.
18
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2023-085, 2016-129, 2004-167.
19
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2005-194, 2003-385.
20
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 98-126.

Sheriff Jay Cantrell and Mr. Daniel L. Ingram
Opinion No. 2025-063
Page 4

spouses;21 net pay;22 banking information;23 and other financial “records that would divulge intimate financial detail.”24

The copy of a signed employee handbook in question does not contain redactable information.

3. Complaint. This Office has consistently concluded that unsolicited complaints or allegations
   about a public employee that are not generated by or at the behest of the employer are personnel records subject to release25—even if they are “unsubstantiated or later determined to be unfounded.”26 Such unsolicited records are not transformed into an employee-evaluation or job- performance record by virtue of a subsequent investigation.27

In contrast, complaints or allegations about a public employee that are generated by or at the behest of the employer in connection with an “agency inquiry or investigation of alleged employee misconduct” are employee-evaluation or job-performance records.28

The “Citizen Complaint Form” in question suggests that the complainant is employed by the Washington County Sheriff’s Office—listed as “WCSO.” But the detailed narrative in the “Citizen Complaint Form” indicates that the complainant wrote down a January 2024 complaint about a public employee that he or she received directly on the phone from a third-party. The complainant investigated the complaint and allegations “immediately” after the phone call.

Additionally, the complainant wrote down a February 2024 complaint that was made by a third- party to the Sheriff, who then told the complainant over the phone. The complainant investigated the complaint and allegations after receiving “this information” over the phone from the Sheriff.

Other than the two sentences memorializing the January 2024 third-party complaint and the two sentences memorializing the February 2024 third-party complaint, the remaining portions of the narrative detail the complainant’s own investigations into the complaints and allegations.

Although the complainant's narrative appears to be based on unsolicited third-party complaints, the “Citizen Complaint Form” itself appears to have been completed by an employee of the Washington County Sheriff’s Office in connection with that Office’s inquiry or investigation of

21
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2018-084, 2006-165, 2002-237, 2001-080.
22
E.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2023-084, 2018-064, 2018-015, 2002-043, 98-126.
23
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2005-194.
24
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2005-194, 98-126, 95-242, 95-110, 94-235, 91-093, 87-422.
25
E.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2016-014, 2015-053, 2012-074, 2010-109, 2001-028, 2000-058.
26
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2015-053; see also Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2016-014.
27
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2001-123, 2000-166, 98-130, 98-001, 96-257.
28
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2006-158.

Sheriff Jay Cantrell and Mr. Daniel L. Ingram
Opinion No. 2025-063
Page 5

alleged misconduct. If the complainant was asked by the employer or the person conducting the investigation to write the complaint and narrative, the “Citizen Complaint Form” would be an employee-evaluation or job-performance record for that reason.29 Additionally, the “Citizen Complaint Form” appears to have been created after any third-party complaints were made and concern the complainant’s own investigations into conduct. Thus, for the reasons discussed in Section 3, the form also qualifies as an employee-evaluation or job-performance record for another independent reason: it was generated by or at the behest of the employer while investigating two separate complaints or allegations made about a public employee.

Employee-evaluation or job-performance records cannot be released unless all the following elements have been met:

• Suspension or termination. The employee was suspended or terminated;

• Administrative finality. The suspension or termination is administratively final and is, therefore, incapable of any administrative reversal or modification;

• Relevance. The records in question formed a basis for the decision to suspend or terminate the employee; and

• Compelling interest. The public has a compelling interest in the disclosure of the records in question.30

Your correspondence and the records provided indicate that no employee received a suspension or termination because of the complaint. Consequently, the first three elements are not met and the “Citizen Complaint Form” should be withheld from release.

4. Investigative records. As this Office has consistently concluded, records in an internal affairs
   file that have been generated by or at the behest of the employer while investigating a complaint against an employee (evaluating the employee and detailing performance or lack of performance on the job) constitute employee-evaluation or job-performance records.31 Thus, because the investigative memorandum, investigative reports, interviews, notices, and “Washington County Sheriff’s Office Investigation” records were generated by or at the behest of the employer in the course of investigating a complaint, they are best classified as employee-evaluation or job- performance records. These employee-evaluation or job-performance records cannot be released unless all the following elements have been met: suspension or termination; administrative finality; relevance; and compelling interest.32

29
See Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2012-105.
30
A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1).
31
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2007-311; see also Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2004-178.
32
A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1).

Sheriff Jay Cantrell and Mr. Daniel L. Ingram
Opinion No. 2025-063
Page 6

Your correspondence and the records provided indicate that no employee received a suspension or termination because of the investigation in question. Because the first three elements are not met, such documents should be withheld from release.

Assistant Attorney General William R. Olson prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.

Sincerely,

TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General