Can a police officer get her own body-camera-review evaluation forms from her department under FOIA, even though those forms are normally exempt from release to the public?
Plain-English summary
Officer Brittany Byrd of the Conway Police Department asked the department for two specific types of records about herself: the supervisor's review logs of her body-worn-camera and dash-camera footage (CPD Form 229), and corresponding Form 81s evaluating her performance based on those reviews. The custodian denied the request, citing the FOIA exemption for employee-evaluation records (A.C.A. § 25-19-105). Byrd asked the AG whether that denial was correct.
Attorney General Tim Griffin opined that the denial was likely inconsistent with the FOIA. The reason: A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(2) is a separate provision that says any personnel or evaluation records that are exempt from disclosure under the FOIA "shall nonetheless be made available to the person about whom the records are maintained or to that person's designated representative." In other words, even if a record is closed to the public as an evaluation record, the employee herself has a right to see it.
The AG hadn't actually seen the requested forms. He couldn't be 100% sure they were the kind of records Byrd described. But based on her description (logs that summarize the review of her bodycam footage and forms that recommend training based on that review), they sounded like records about her performance, which the FOIA covers. The custodian's blanket "they're evaluation records, so we won't release them" reasoning misses the (c)(2) override.
What this means for you
If you are a public employee in Arkansas
You have a statutory right to your own personnel and evaluation records, even when those records are exempt from public release. If your employer claims an exemption to deny your own request, point them to A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(2). That subsection trumps the standard exemption analysis when the requester is the subject of the records.
Make your request in writing and identify yourself clearly as the subject of the records you want. Don't accept "this is an evaluation record, so we can't release it" as a sufficient reason; that explanation is correct as to the public, but not as to you.
If you are a records custodian for a public agency
Two-track analysis: if the requester is a member of the public, apply the standard exemption analysis. If the requester is the employee whose records they are, apply A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(2) and produce the records subject to limited redactions for things like third-party information. Your standard "we don't release evaluation records" form letter does not work when the employee is asking for her own file.
If you are a police chief or HR director responding to an employee's records request
This opinion is a reminder that you owe employees their own files. Treat employee self-requests as routine personnel-file requests, not as FOIA litigation matters.
If you represent an employee in a public-sector employment dispute
A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(2) is a useful pre-litigation tool. You can get evaluation records that document your client's performance history, including reprimands, internal-affairs reports, and supervisor review logs, without litigation. That can illuminate the evidence base before any discipline-review hearing or lawsuit.
Common questions
Q: What's A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(2)?
A: A FOIA provision that says personnel or evaluation records that are exempt from disclosure under the FOIA shall nonetheless be made available to the person about whom the records are maintained or to that person's designated representative.
Q: How is this different from a public FOIA request?
A: A public FOIA request runs into the standard exemptions. The (c)(2) provision is an override that gives the subject a more expansive right than the public has. The exemptions that block public access do not block the employee's access to her own file.
Q: Does this include performance evaluations?
A: Yes. The same logic that protects evaluations from public release also covers them in (c)(2)'s reach: they are personnel or evaluation records, and the subject has a right to see them.
Q: What about records that mention other employees too?
A: When records concern more than one person, the custodian may redact information about others under the standard rules. The subject's right of access doesn't expand to records about people other than herself.
Q: What if the employer says they don't have the records?
A: That's a different problem. If the records actually don't exist, FOIA can't produce them. But if the employer is claiming an exemption (rather than non-existence), (c)(2) is the answer.
Q: What's a "designated representative"?
A: Someone the employee designates to receive the records on her behalf. This can be a lawyer, a union representative, or anyone else the employee names in writing.
Background and statutory framework
Arkansas FOIA generally protects personnel records and evaluation records from public release through (b)(12) and (c)(1). The legislature added (c)(2) as a deliberate carve-out for the subject of those records. The reason is intuitive: the records are about the employee, and the employee usually has a personal stake in seeing them, whether for a discipline review, a promotion appeal, a workplace dispute, or just to know what is in her own file.
The (c)(2) provision is not a small technicality. It is a meaningful right. Custodians who reflexively apply (c)(1)'s four-part test to a self-request from the subject are misreading the statute.
The opinion-request mechanism that Officer Byrd invoked (under (c)(3)(B)(i)) is the special review channel that exists for exactly these classification disputes. The AG can take a request from the custodian, the requester, or the subject and opine on whether the custodian's decision is consistent with the FOIA. Here, the AG used the channel to flag the (c)(2) override.
Citations and references
Statutes:
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1) (evaluation records four-part test)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(2) (employee right to own records, override of exemptions)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (opinion-request authority)
Cases:
- 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. 2015-057, 2009-067, 2006-038, 2003-073, 95-351, 93-055
Source
Original opinion text
BOB R. BROOKS JR. JUSTICE BUILDING
101 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
Opinion No. 2025-066
July 31, 2025
Officer Brittany Byrd
Email: [email protected]
Dear Officer Byrd:
You have requested an opinion from this Office regarding the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Your request, which is made as both the subject of the records and the requester 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 your correspondence, you requested a number of records from the Conway Police Department, including "copies of all Supervisor MDR-Video Review Logs (CPD Form 229)" and "all corresponding CPD Form 81 completed by any supervisor which includes the evaluation, examination, review or recommended corrective action of Brittany Byrd's body worn camera, or in-car recording system (dash camera) from 01/01/2023 through 06/30/2025." Although the Conway Police Department has provided some of the requested records, the custodian has denied your request "for the CPD Form 229 and Form 81," claiming that "these are evaluations and are exempt under [A.C.A. §] 25-19-105."
You have clarified that your request is only for those video review logs evaluating your own performance and for Form 81 records evaluating you. You ask whether the custodian's decision to withhold these particular records is consistent with the FOIA.
RESPONSE
The FOIA specifically authorizes a public employee to gain access to his or her own personnel records and employee evaluations: "Any personnel or evaluation records exempt from disclosure under [the FOIA] shall nonetheless be made available to the person about whom the records are maintained or to that person's designated representative."
The records custodian has classified the requested Form 229 and Form 81 records as evaluation records. And you have stated that the requested video review logs evaluate your performance as an officer, that Form 229 summarizes the evaluation, and that Form 81 is a form created to review or recommend officer training based on the evaluations.
While I have not seen the requested records and cannot definitively opine on their contents, the information you have provided suggests that they are your evaluation records. Therefore, the custodian's decision to withhold those requested records is likely inconsistent with the FOIA.
Senior Assistant Attorney General Kelly Summerside prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.
Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General