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
A FOIA requester asked for an internal investigation file from the Washington County Sheriff's Office. The investigation centered on alleged employee misconduct but didn't result in any suspension or termination. The custodian (Sheriff Jay Cantrell) withheld the entire file as an "employee-evaluation record." The subject of the records agreed with the withholding decision. Both Cantrell and the subject's attorney asked the AG to confirm the call was right.
Attorney General Tim Griffin agreed with most of the withholding but pulled out one piece. The bulk of the file (investigation memos, citizen complaint form, investigative reports, witness interviews, Garrity notices, and the case-investigation records) are evaluation records. They were created at the employer's request to investigate the employee and detail the employee's performance or alleged misconduct. The four-part test for releasing evaluation records requires (among other things) a suspension or termination, and there was none here. So the file stays closed.
But one document in the file is a signed copy of an employee handbook. That is a personnel record, not an evaluation record. The signed handbook is the kind of administrative document that goes in any employee's file regardless of the investigation. It's open to public inspection.
The AG also addressed the citizen complaint form. The form itself was created by an employee of the Sheriff's Office in connection with the office's investigation. Even though the underlying complaints were unsolicited (third parties called in by phone), the form was prepared by or at the behest of the employer in the course of the investigation. So the form is an evaluation record. It would have been a personnel record if the citizen had walked in and filled it out themselves.
What this means for you
If you are a sheriff or police chief responding to a FOIA request for an IA file
When no discipline resulted, withhold the investigation records under § 25-19-105(c)(1) and identify finality (or its absence) clearly in your denial letter. But pull personnel records out of the file before sealing it. Signed handbooks, payroll records, and similar administrative documents that happen to be in the same physical or digital folder are still personnel records and remain releasable.
If you are a records custodian
When you receive a FOIA request for "an internal-affairs file" or "the personnel file," do not simply apply one classification to the whole bundle. Walk through each document and decide what category it falls in. Some documents in an IA file are evaluation records, some are personnel records, and some may be neither. The release/withhold call depends on the document, not on the folder.
If you are a citizen who made a complaint about a public employee
Your complaint may or may not become part of an evaluation record, depending on how the agency processes it. If you submitted a written complaint directly, your written complaint is a personnel record (subject to release) until and unless the agency turns it into an investigation. If the agency wrote up your phone complaint into an internal "Citizen Complaint Form," that form is more likely to be an evaluation record.
If you are a journalist requesting IA files
Push for itemized release with a written explanation of why each withheld document falls in the evaluation-record category. Misclassification is common: signed handbooks, training certificates, and other administrative paperwork often get bundled into the IA file and withheld erroneously. The AG's analysis here gives you a precedent for separating those out.
If you are a county attorney advising a sheriff's office
Build a redaction-and-categorization protocol for IA files. The protocol should sort each document into "personnel record," "evaluation record," "neither" (e.g., incident reports), or "ACIC criminal-history information." Each category has its own release rule. A blanket "the IA file is closed" answer can lead to under-release of personnel records and over-release of ACIC data.
If you represent the subject of an IA investigation
Your client may want to know which documents in the file would become public if discipline ultimately follows. The line is roughly: anything tied to the investigation itself becomes evaluation, anything administrative stays personnel. Documents that tie those categories together (a signed Garrity acknowledgment, for example) get closer scrutiny.
Common questions
Q: What is a Garrity notice?
A: A formal warning given to a public employee being interviewed about possible misconduct, telling the employee that statements compelled in the internal investigation cannot be used in a criminal prosecution but can be used in employment proceedings. The Garrity rule comes from Garrity v. New Jersey (1967).
Q: Why doesn't lack of discipline mean the file should be released?
A: The four-part test for releasing evaluation records requires (1) a suspension or termination, (2) administrative finality, (3) record was the basis for the discipline, and (4) compelling public interest. If no suspension or termination occurred, the first element fails. Without all four, the file stays closed.
Q: What's the difference between a personnel record and an evaluation record?
A: Personnel records are documents in the file that were not created to evaluate the employee. Evaluation records are documents created by or at the employer's request to evaluate performance. Same physical file, different legal categories.
Q: Why is a signed employee handbook a personnel record?
A: It documents that the employee acknowledged receipt of the handbook. It is administrative, not evaluative. It does not detail performance.
Q: Can the file ever become public later?
A: Maybe. If the employee is later disciplined and the discipline becomes administratively final, and if the records in the file formed the basis for that discipline, and if the public has a compelling interest, then yes. The AG's analysis is fact-specific to the present moment.
Q: What about citizen complaints that come in unsolicited?
A: An unsolicited citizen complaint, written by the citizen and sent to the agency, is a personnel record. But a "Citizen Complaint Form" filled out by an employee of the agency in the course of an internal investigation is itself an evaluation record. The classification turns on who created the document and why.
Background and statutory framework
Internal-affairs files are the most common subject of the AG's FOIA opinion-request work. They sit at the intersection of three FOIA categories (personnel records, evaluation records, and ACIC criminal-history records) and most public agencies handle them inconsistently.
The four-part test of A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1) is the controlling rule for evaluation records: suspension or termination, administrative finality, relevance to the discipline, and compelling public interest. Without all four, the records stay closed. The fact that no discipline occurred is the most common reason an IA file does not become public.
The AG's prior opinion 2007-311 (cited here) is the key authority that internal-affairs investigation reports are evaluation records when generated at the employer's request to evaluate the employee. The prior opinions on unsolicited citizen complaints (2016-014, 2015-053, 2012-074, 2010-109, 2001-028, 2000-058) confirm that a complaint written by an outsider is a personnel record subject to release.
The opinion declines to address the additional questions Cantrell and Ingram raised, noting that A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) only authorizes the AG to opine on whether the custodian's release/withhold decision is consistent with FOIA. Other related questions (about who has access, how to handle redactions, etc.) fall outside that scope.
Citations and references
Statutes:
- A.C.A. § 25-19-103(7)(A) (public-record definition)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(11) (personal identification numbers)
- 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)
Cases:
- Legis. Joint Auditing Comm. v. Woosley, 291 Ark. 89, 722 S.W.2d 581 (1987)
- 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. 2024-074, 2023-085, 2022-032, 2018-084, 2016-129, 2016-104, 2016-014, 2015-053, 2014-094, 2012-105, 2012-074, 2010-109, 2007-311, 2007-070, 2007-064, 2006-165, 2006-158, 2005-194, 2005-095, 2004-178, 2004-167, 2003-385, 2003-153, 2002-326, 2002-237, 2001-123, 2001-080, 2001-028, 2000-166, 2000-058, 98-130, 98-126, 98-001, 97-368, 96-257, 95-242, 95-110, 94-235, 91-093, 87-422
Source
Original opinion text
BOB R. BROOKS JR. JUSTICE BUILDING
101 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
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). 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 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," 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
- 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. Second, the requested document must constitute a public record. Third, the document must not be subject to an exemption.
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. 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, however, to 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 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. 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.
- Employee handbook memorandum. The copy of a signed employee handbook memorandum is a personnel record subject to release under the FOIA.
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), employee personnel numbers or identification codes; marital status of public employees; dates of birth of public employees; social security numbers; driver's license numbers; insurance coverage; tax information or withholdings; payroll deductions; names of children, spouses, and ex-spouses; net pay; banking information; and other financial "records that would divulge intimate financial detail."
The copy of a signed employee handbook in question does not contain redactable information.
- 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 release, even if they are "unsubstantiated or later determined to be unfounded." Such unsolicited records are not transformed into an employee-evaluation or job-performance record by virtue of a subsequent investigation.
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.
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 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. 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.
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.
- 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. 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.
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