Can the Arkansas AG review whether a police department properly redacted call-for-service and incident reports under FOIA?
Plain-English summary
Mr. Jimmie Cavin asked the Conway Police Department for all call-for-service records and incident reports related to the homes of two named individuals. One of the people named was a Conway police officer. CPD released the records but redacted parts of them, citing the FOIA exemption for the personal contact information of public employees. Cavin objected to the redactions and asked the Attorney General to review the custodian's decision under the special opinion-request statute, A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i).
Attorney General Tim Griffin declined to opine on the merits. The opinion-request statute is narrow. It lets the AG opine only on whether a custodian's decision about a personnel record or an employee-evaluation/job-performance record is consistent with the FOIA. Call-for-service reports and incident reports are neither.
Why? Personnel records are records that pertain to an individual employee but were not created by the employer to evaluate that employee. Evaluation records are records created by or at the behest of the employer to evaluate an employee. Incident reports and call-for-service reports are generated about events involving members of the public, not specifically to evaluate an employee. Even when the subject of an incident is a person who happens to be an employee, the report is about that person's actions as a private citizen, not as personnel.
The AG's prior opinions (2018-008, 2010-003, 2008-004, 2006-094, 2001-144) have repeatedly said the same thing. The Arkansas Supreme Court's Hengel v. City of Pine Bluff (1991) opinion separately confirmed that incident reports are public records under FOIA, but that does not transform them into personnel or evaluation records for purposes of the special opinion-request statute.
Practically, this means a requester who disagrees with redactions on incident or call-for-service reports has to go through the regular FOIA path: petition for review in circuit court, or work with the city to negotiate. The AG opinion-request statute is the wrong tool.
What this means for you
If you are a FOIA requester after police call-for-service or incident reports
The AG cannot review the custodian's redactions on your incident-report request through the opinion process. If you want a binding determination, file a FOIA action in circuit court under A.C.A. § 25-19-107. Be aware that incident reports are public under Hengel, but personal contact information of public employees and certain other discrete categories are still subject to redaction.
When you ask for an incident report, ask the custodian to identify each redaction with a specific statutory basis (the redaction-explanation requirement of A.C.A. § 25-19-105(a)(3)(B)). That gives you a clear target to challenge in court if you disagree.
If you are a police records custodian
Be precise when you redact and when you classify a record. Calls-for-service and incident reports are public records but are subject to specific exemptions. Personal contact information of nonelected public employees is exempt under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(13). Make those redactions surgical and explain them in writing.
If a requester invokes A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) to ask the AG to review your decision, but the records are incident reports rather than personnel/evaluation records, you can let the AG know that the records are outside the AG's review scope and the AG will agree.
If you are a journalist working with police records
Use this opinion as a reminder that the AG opinion-request mechanism is limited. Don't burn time asking for AG review of incident-report redactions; that is not what the statute provides. Go to court or work the redactions out with the agency through correspondence and negotiation.
If you are a city attorney or police-department lawyer
The opinion confirms that incident reports remain public records subject to release, even when an employee is involved as a private citizen. It does not change anything substantive about FOIA classification. It just confines the AG's special-review authority to personnel/evaluation records.
Common questions
Q: What is the AG opinion-request statute?
A: A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) lets a records custodian, a requester, or the subject of certain employee-related records ask the Attorney General to opine on whether the custodian's decision is consistent with the FOIA. The opinion is advisory; it has no binding effect, but it carries persuasive weight.
Q: Why is the AG's review limited to personnel/evaluation records?
A: That's how the legislature wrote the statute. The General Assembly thought enough of the personnel/evaluation classification problem to create a special opinion-request mechanism for it. Other FOIA disputes go through the regular processes (circuit court, normal correspondence with the custodian).
Q: Are incident reports public?
A: Yes. The Arkansas Supreme Court held in Hengel v. City of Pine Bluff that incident reports and other records kept in the usual operation of a police department are public records under the FOIA. That presumption can be rebutted in narrow circumstances, but the default is release.
Q: What about the personal contact information of an officer named in an incident report?
A: A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(13) exempts the personal contact information of nonelected public employees from disclosure when contained in employer records. Personal phone numbers, home addresses, and personal email addresses can be redacted under that section.
Q: What happens if I disagree with the redactions?
A: File a FOIA action in circuit court under A.C.A. § 25-19-107. The court will review the custodian's decision and order release if appropriate.
Q: Can the AG ever opine on calls-for-service or incident reports?
A: Maybe, in narrow circumstances. If a particular incident report was created at the behest of the employer to evaluate the employee (for example, an internal-affairs investigation report), it could become an evaluation record. But ordinary incident reports about citizen complaints or 911 calls are not.
Background and statutory framework
A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) is the FOIA's special opinion-request mechanism. It is used most often for police-misconduct termination letters, internal-affairs investigation reports, and similar personnel-related disputes. It exists because those classification questions arise frequently and benefit from a centralized expert opinion.
The two-track system in the FOIA distinguishes personnel records (open with redactions) from evaluation records (closed unless the four-part test is met). The classification questions can be subtle. The AG opinion-request mechanism is built to handle them.
Outside that narrow track, FOIA disputes go through the regular channels. The custodian explains a denial or redaction; the requester accepts or challenges; if challenged, a circuit court decides. Adding incident reports and call-for-service reports to the AG opinion-request track would have expanded the AG's docket significantly without statutory authority.
The Hengel decision is the standing rule that incident reports are public records. It does not exempt them from redaction; it just confirms they are subject to release.
Citations and references
Statutes:
- A.C.A. § 25-19-103(7)(A) (public-record definition)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(a)(3)(B) (redaction-explanation requirement)
- 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)(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)
- Hengel v. City of Pine Bluff, 307 Ark. 457, 821 S.W.2d 761 (1991)
- 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:
- Ark. Att'y Gen. Ops. 2024-071, 2018-008, 2016-104, 2015-072, 2010-003, 2009-145, 2008-004, 2006-094, 2005-095, 2001-152, 2001-144, 2000-257, 2000-231, 99-147, 97-368
Source
Original opinion text
BOB R. BROOKS JR. JUSTICE BUILDING
101 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
Opinion No. 2025-072
August 6, 2025
Mr. Jimmie Cavin
Via email only: [email protected]
Dear Mr. Cavin:
You have requested my opinion regarding the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"). Your request, which is made as 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 from this office stating whether the custodian's decision regarding the release of such records is consistent with the FOIA.
Under the FOIA, you requested the following records from the Conway Police Department: all "Calls for Service" to the residences of two named individuals and "[a]ll Incident Reports pertaining to events" at their residences. You note that one of the individuals is an officer with the Conway Police Department.
In response to your FOIA request, the Conway Police Department's custodian of records provided you with redacted copies of a "Call For Service Report" and three "Incident Reports." You have provided the redacted records for my review.
After you received the redacted records, you informed the Conway Police Department's records custodian that the reasons for the redactions to the records "were not identified in the response as required under [A.C.A. §] 25-19-105(a)(3)(B)." The Conway Police Department responded by stating that all redactions were based on A.C.A. 25-29-105(b)(13), which exempts from release the personal contact information of certain nonelected public employees contained in employer records.
Noting that the "Call For Service and Incident Reports are clearly not... [personnel records or employee-evaluation or job-performance records] and the request was not for such records," you ask whether the custodian's decisions concerning the redactions are consistent with the FOIA.
RESPONSE
The records provided for my review are neither "personnel records" nor "employee-evaluation or job-performance records." Thus, I lack the authority under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) to opine on whether the custodian's decisions are consistent with the FOIA.
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 Conway 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 that presumption is rebuttable. Because I have no information to suggest that the presumption can be rebutted, I will 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." Personnel records are records that pertain to an individual employee that were not created by or at the behest of the employer to evaluate the employee. Employee evaluation and job-performance records, on the other hand, are records (1) created by or at the behest of the employer (2) to evaluate the employee (3) that detail the employee's performance or lack of performance on the job.
-
Employee-evaluation or job-performance records. While incident reports are sometimes "employee-evaluation or job-performance records," the "Call for Service" reports and the three "Incident Reports" are not employee-evaluation or job-performance records because they were not created by or at the behest of the employer to evaluate the employee, and they do not detail the employee's performance or lack of performance on the job.
-
Personnel records. Even though the "Call for Service" reports and "Incident Reports" reference someone who happens to be an employee without evaluating that person, they do not qualify as the employee's "personnel records" because the records were generated by the Conway Police Department regarding someone acting purely in his capacity as a private citizen, not in his capacity as "personnel." And the evidence provided does not indicate that such records were kept on file because the individual mentioned in the report is "personnel."
-
Conclusion. My review under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) is limited to personnel records and employee-evaluation or job-performance records. But as my predecessors have previously opined, incident reports are neither "personnel records" nor "employee-evaluation or job-performance records." Thus, the records you have provided fall outside the scope of my review under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i), and I lack the authority to opine on whether the custodian's decisions are consistent with the FOIA.
Assistant Attorney General William R. Olson prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.
Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General