I run a small police department. Someone has FOIA'd a former officer's personnel file. I have admin records, a written warning, a paid-administrative-leave letter, a final investigation letter, investigative notes, and a resignation letter. What can I release?

Plain-English summary

Prairie Grove Police Chief Chris Workman submitted a stack of records on a former officer for AG review before release. The records included administrative records (job application, training receipts, separation notice, resignation letter), an April 2015 administrative warning, a paid-administrative-leave letter, a final investigation letter, and typed investigative notes.

The AG split the stack into five buckets and assessed each.

Administrative records. Personnel records, releasable, but with several redactions the custodian had not yet made. Marital status (and information that necessarily reveals it, like questions about a spouse) must be redacted. Information about dependents or children must be redacted. Intimate financial details (credit references, total indebtedness) must be redacted, and the custodian needs to apply those redactions consistently. References' contact information must be redacted only if the references are themselves public employees; private references' contact information stays in.

Administrative warning. Personnel record, releasable. The April 1, 2015 written warning would normally be an evaluation record because written reprimands and letters of caution typically are. But this particular warning did not state the reasons for the warning beyond a generic reference to "an incident or you have personal knowledge of an incident which is under administrative investigation." Without specifics, it does not detail the employee's performance, so it falls back into the personnel category.

Paid administrative leave letter. Personnel record, releasable. The April 1, 2015 letter put the officer on paid leave pending internal investigation. The AG treated it as "purely administrative and non-disciplinary," following its line of opinions that paid-leave-pending-investigation letters are administrative actions, not evaluative ones.

Final investigation letter. Personnel record, releasable. The April 2, 2015 letter from the chief noted that allegations had been deemed "founded" and that the officer resigned. It did not provide specific findings or describe individual allegations. Like the leave letter, it is administrative and post-investigatory.

Investigative notes. Evaluation records. The typed notes were generated by or at the behest of the employer to investigate the officer's job performance. They cannot be released unless the four-element test under section 25-19-105(c)(1) is met. The first element (suspension or termination) is the issue. The officer resigned in 2015 before discipline. Under the AG's "constructive termination" line of opinions, a forced resignation in the face of certain, impending termination satisfies element one. The custodian must investigate whether the officer was about to be terminated. If yes, all four elements likely fall into place (resignation in 2015 is final, the notes formed the basis for the constructive termination, and the public has a compelling interest in police misconduct records). If no, the notes stay sealed.

What this means for you

If you are a small-department police chief or sheriff

Don't lump documents. The single biggest mistake the AG flags repeatedly is treating an entire personnel file as one classification (usually as evaluation records, to keep it sealed). Each document gets its own classification, and the document-by-document approach often releases far more than the "lump it" approach.

For investigative notes specifically, build the constructive-termination record before you respond to the FOIA. Look at: was the investigation about to recommend termination? Did the chief or HR communicate that to the officer before resignation? Was the officer told that resignation was an alternative to certain firing? If yes to those, you have a constructive termination. If no, the notes stay sealed.

If you are a records custodian

Three concrete corrections this opinion flags:

1. Marital-status redactions. Look beyond the line that says "married/single" to questions that imply marital status indirectly (a spouse's parents, divorce, marital separation). Those go too.
2. Children/dependents redactions. Same logic. Questions about temper, discipline, criticism of children all reveal that the employee has children.
3. Reference contact info. Redact only when the reference is a public employee. Private references stay in. Inconsistent redactions (some references redacted, others not) suggest the custodian did not actually check.

If you are an officer who resigned during an investigation

If your resignation was voluntary, the investigative notes about your conduct are exempt from FOIA disclosure. If your resignation was forced (you were told you would be fired if you did not resign), the AG's line of opinions treats that as constructive termination and the notes are likely releasable. The custodian, not you, decides which it was, and your view of the resignation is not controlling. If your situation matters to your reputation, document the voluntariness in a contemporary writing.

If you are a journalist or member of the public

The four-element framework is your roadmap. For each evaluation record, run through the elements. If the resignation in your file was forced, the records may still be releasable under the constructive-termination doctrine. Police-misconduct records satisfy element four (compelling public interest) almost automatically because of the public-trust factor.

If you are a city attorney advising on a release

The classification of warning letters depends on whether reasons are stated. A reasons-included reprimand is an evaluation record. A bare-bones letter that just says "you have been involved in an incident under investigation" is a personnel record. Read the letter; do not assume.

For paid-leave letters, the AG has a settled line: leave imposed pending investigation is administrative, not disciplinary. Treat as personnel record and release.

Common questions

Why is this written warning a personnel record but most reprimands aren't?
Because it didn't state the reasons. Most "letters of caution" or "written reprimands" detail what the officer did wrong, which makes them evaluation records. This warning just said "you have been involved in an incident or you have personal knowledge of an incident which is under administrative investigation" without specifics. Without performance details, it cannot be an evaluation record.

Why is paid administrative leave not disciplinary?
The AG distinguishes leave imposed pending investigation (administrative) from suspension imposed as discipline (evaluation record). Paid leave maintains the employee's pay and benefits and is procedural protection during the investigation, not a finding of fault. Suspension without pay, by contrast, is disciplinary and would usually be an evaluation record once it states reasons.

What's a "constructive termination" under FOIA?
A constructive termination is a resignation under pressure when termination "appears certain." If the employer was about to fire the employee and the employee resigned to avoid that, the AG treats the resignation as the functional equivalent of termination for purposes of element one of the four-element test. Without that doctrine, every officer facing termination could simply resign and seal their investigative file.

How does the custodian prove constructive termination?
By looking at the contemporary record. Was the chief preparing termination paperwork? Had HR been notified? Were the allegations of the type that the department's discipline matrix would resolve in termination? Did anyone tell the officer they could resign or be fired? Document trails build the case. Without them, the resignation looks voluntary and the records stay sealed.

Why does the public have a "compelling interest" in police investigative notes?
Because law enforcement officers exercise public authority that is unique and accompanied by significant trust. The AG has repeatedly held that records reflecting violations of office policy by officers presumptively meet element four. That doesn't mean every police record is releasable, just that police records clear the compelling-interest hurdle more easily than records of, say, a city accountant.

The former officer is private now. Doesn't that change the privacy analysis?
No. The Young v. Rice balancing test for personnel records is about the records themselves, not the current employment status of the subject. The conduct described in an investigation while the officer was on duty remains tied to a public office and its public-trust component. Privacy interests of the former officer are weighed, but the public interest in past police conduct does not evaporate.

What about contact information of references?
The AG repeats a rule from prior opinions: references' contact information is redactable only when the references are themselves public employees. Private references' contact info is not exempt. The custodian here had inconsistent redactions, which the AG flagged.

Are non-elected public employees' contact details always redacted?
Yes, under section 25-19-105(b)(13). Personal phone numbers, personal email addresses, and home addresses of public employees are redacted automatically. Note this is the personal information; their work email and work phone are public.

Background and statutory framework

Two-test split. Arkansas FOIA splits employee records into personnel records (released under the section 25-19-105(b)(12) Young v. Rice balancing test) and employee-evaluation/job-performance records (released only if all four section 25-19-105(c)(1) elements are met). Classification is the threshold task.

Personnel records subject to disclosure. The AG provides a long roster: documents confirming employment, dates of hire, education and degrees, training and certifications, signed acknowledgments of policies and procedures, pre-employment background investigations, change-of-status records without reasons, employee race and gender, employee names, salaries, payroll records, and general resignation letters. These categories tend to release with redactions, not withhold.

Personnel records subject to redaction within an otherwise releasable document. Personal contact information of public employees, employee personnel/identification numbers (when used for system access under section 25-19-105(b)(11)), marital status and indirectly-revealing facts, dates of birth, social security numbers, driver's license numbers, insurance coverage, tax/withholding information, payroll deductions, names of children and spouses, net pay, banking information, and intimate financial details.

Evaluation records: the four-element test. Under section 25-19-105(c)(1):

1. Suspension or termination.
2. Administrative finality.
3. Relevance (the record formed a basis for the discipline).
4. Compelling public interest.

All four required.

Constructive termination. A line of AG opinions (2025-049, 2025-053, 2023-077, 2012-019, 2011-078, 2011-084) holds that a resignation forced "in the face of certain, impending termination" qualifies as a constructive termination satisfying element one. Watkins, Peltz, et al. observe that "a departure under pressure when termination appears certain can amount to a constructive discharge."

Police investigative notes as evaluation records. AG opinions 2007-311 and 2004-178 hold that investigative notes generated at the behest of an employer while investigating a complaint against an employee are evaluation records. They detail the employee's conduct on the job and were created for evaluation purposes.

Compelling public interest in law enforcement records. AG opinions 2023-071, 2023-013, 2014-129, 2006-026 (and many others) consistently hold that the public-trust nature of policing creates a compelling interest in records reflecting officer policy violations.

Citations

Statutes:
- A.C.A. § 25-19-103(14)(A), as amended by Act 505 of 2025, § 1 (definition of public records)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(11) (personal identification numbers used for computer security)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12) (personnel-records balancing test)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(13) (personal contact information of public employees)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1) (four-element evaluation-records release test)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(A) (notice to subject employee of FOIA request)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (AG review authority)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(f) (redaction of pieces within otherwise releasable records)

Cases:
- Legis. Joint Auditing Comm. v. Woosley, 291 Ark. 89, 722 S.W.2d 581 (1987) (three-element FOIA framework)
- Pulaski Cnty. v. Ark. Democrat-Gazette, Inc., 370 Ark. 435, 260 S.W.3d 718 (2007)
- Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992) (personnel-records balancing test)
- Thomas v. Hall, 2012 Ark. 66, 399 S.W.3d 387 (definition of evaluation record)
- Davis v. Van Buren Sch. Dist., 2019 Ark. App. 466, 572 S.W.3d 466
- Stilley v. McBride, 332 Ark. 306, 965 S.W.2d 125 (1998)

Other AG opinions referenced (selected):
- 2025-063, 2025-059, 2025-049, 2024-067, 2008-053 (signed acknowledgments of policies as personnel records)
- 2025-049, 2025-053, 2023-077, 2012-019, 2011-078, 2011-084 (constructive termination doctrine)
- 2023-071, 2023-013, 2014-129, 2006-026 (compelling public interest in law enforcement records)
- 2023-111 (administrative non-disciplinary notice as personnel record)
- 2024-063, 2023-096, 2021-111, 2014-110 (paid administrative leave is administrative, not disciplinary)
- 2007-311, 2004-178 (internal affairs investigative notes as evaluation records)
- 2024-067, 2009-146, 2008-135, 97-261, 97-190, 93-105, 92-231, 92-207, 91-324 (written reprimands as evaluation records when reasons stated)
- 2025-060, 2023-081, 2001-276, 2001-244, 98-075 (suspension letter as personnel record when no reasons stated)
- 2022-032, 2014-094, 2007-070 (employee personnel numbers redaction)

Source

• Landing page: https://arkansasag.gov/divisions/opinions-foia/attorney-general-opinions-search/

Original opinion text

Opinion No. 2025-088
September 8, 2025

Chief Chris Workman
Prairie Grove Police Department
Post Office Box 1033
Prairie Grove, Arkansas 72753

Dear Chief Workman:

You have requested an opinion from this Office regarding the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Your request, which is made on behalf of the custodian of 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.

You report that someone requested certain records from a former police officer's personnel file from the Prairie Grove Police Department. The custodian identified certain employee records as responsive to this request, and the custodian intends to disclose all of those records. You ask whether the custodian's decisions are consistent with the FOIA.

You have provided copies of the following employee records for my review:
- Administrative records. These include a signed "Receipt for Policy & Procedure Manual"; a completed multi-page "Employment Questionnaire"; a new employee background-record-request letter; a signed "Prairie Grove Police Department Release of Information Agreement"; a signed "Employee Statement"; a signed "Applicant Information for Record Keeping Requirements" form; a copy of a driver's license; a copy of a social security card; a "Standards File Check List"; a signed Hepatitis B shots "Notice to Employees"; a completed "Initial Employment Report"; a multi-page "Personal History Statement" (numbered pages 120 to 130); a "Personnel Separation Notice" for "resignation, [r]etirement, termination or other form of separation"; an email concerning department items that would be requested from the former employee if he was placed on administrative leave; and an April 1, 2015 resignation letter.
- Written warning. This concerns an April 1, 2015 "Administrative Warning" signed by the former employee and supervisor.
- Paid administrative leave letter. This concerns an April 1, 2015 letter from the police chief to the former employee.
- Final investigation letter. This concerns an April 2, 2015 letter from the police chief concluding the internal investigation and noting that the former employee resigned.
- Investigative notes. This concerns typed notes on investigating the performance of the former employee.

The subject of the records objects to the release of the records and questions the requester's motives for making the request. But this Office has consistently opined that, under the FOIA, the requester's intent and motives are generally irrelevant when determining whether public records must be disclosed. Thus, whether someone has certain motives in making a FOIA request is not a sufficient basis for the custodian to withhold the records from release.

RESPONSE

The Prairie Grove Police Department's custodian of records has determined that the records should be released with certain redactions. The custodian's decision to release the records is partially correct under the FOIA. While the custodian may properly release the written "Administrative Warning," the paid administrative leave letter, the final investigation letter, and the administrative records subject to redactions, the custodian should withhold from release the investigative notes. But if the custodian determines that the former employee was suspended or resigned in the face of certain, impending termination, the investigatory notes should also be released.

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. 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 Prairie Grove 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. 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.

2. Administrative records. In my opinion, the administrative records are best categorized as "personnel records," and the custodian's decision to disclose the administrative records is consistent with the FOIA's treatment of "personnel records." Public records are "personnel records" when (1) they pertain to an individual employee, as each document within the set of administrative records does; and (2) they are not an employee-evaluation or job-performance record, created by or at the behest of the employer to evaluate the employee. Although each administrative record appears to have been created by the employer, these records do not provide details or specifics concerning the former employee's performance or lack of performance as a police officer. So the documents that make up the set of administrative records are best classified as "personnel records."

Personnel records are open to public inspection except "to the extent that disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." While the FOIA does not define the phrase "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy," the Arkansas Supreme Court has provided some guidance. In Young v. Rice, the Court applied a balancing test that weighs the public's interest in accessing the records against the individual's interest in keeping them private. The balancing test, which takes place with a thumb on the scale in favor of disclosure, has two steps. First, the custodian must assess whether the information contained in the requested record is of such a personal or intimate nature that it gives rise to a greater than minimal privacy interest. If the privacy interest is minimal, then disclosure is required. Second, if the information gives rise to a greater than minimal privacy interest, then the custodian must determine whether that privacy interest is outweighed by the public's interest in disclosure.

This Office has consistently opined that the following are personnel records subject to disclosure under the FOIA: documents that confirm someone's employment; dates of hire; general education background, including schools attended and degrees received; training and certifications; signed acknowledgments of having received policies and procedures; pre-employment background investigations; general change-of-status records that don't contain reasons for change; employee race and gender; employee names; salaries; payroll records; and general resignation letters. Therefore, the custodian's decision to release these administrative records as "personnel records" is consistent with 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 following information is not currently redacted from the records but should be:

• Marital status. The former employee's marital status, and information that would necessarily reveal such status, is listed in question 8 on page 121 of the "Personal History Statement"; questions 10 and 11 on page 122 of the "Personal History Statement"; question 26 on page 124 of the "Personal History Statement"; and two questions in the "Employment Questionnaire," one concerning whether the former employee is married or separated and the other concerning an event that elicits a response about whether the former employee is married. The custodian should review responses and redact those that disclose whether the former employee is married.

• Dependents. Personal details concerning the former employee's dependents, or children, are listed on questions 13, 14, and 15 (the form mistakenly left out the "1" and only provides the "5") on page 122 of the "Personal History Statement"; and three questions in the "Employment Questionnaire," one concerning the last time that the former employee lost his temper and two concerning whether the former employee disciplines or criticizes children. The custodian should review responses and redact those that disclose whether the former employee has dependents, or children.

• Financial information. Any personal financial information contained in the records that "would divulge intimate financial detail" should be redacted. It is unclear why some of the information in response to questions 27 ("Credit References") and 28 ("total indebtedness") are redacted while certain portions are not. The custodian will need to review to ensure that redactions are consistent.

If a job reference is a non-elected public employee, and his or her personal contact information is "contained in employer records," then such personal contact information should be redacted. But if the job reference is employed in the private sector, his or her personal contact information should not be redacted. Thus, the custodian should review the references accordingly to determine whether such information should be redacted.

3. Written warning. Among the documents you have provided for my review is an April 1, 2015 written warning signed by both the former employee and the supervisor. This Office has consistently opined that employee-evaluation and job-performance records include "written reprimands … [and] letters of caution." But unlike the typical warning or letter of caution, this letter does not give the reasons for the warning, other than a general "you have been involved in an incident or you have personal knowledge of an incident which is under administrative investigation." It does not detail the performance or lack of performance of the former employee "with regard to a specific incident." This is analogous to those instances when a suspension letter is a personnel record because it does not specify the grounds for the suspension. Therefore, this "Administrative Warning" letter is best classified as a personnel record and should be released because doing so would not be a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

4. Paid administrative leave letter. The April 1, 2015 letter from the police chief to the former employee notifies the former employer about an internal investigation into specific alleged policy violations. And "[u]ntil this investigation is resolved you will be placed on paid administrative leave." This is a purely administrative and non-disciplinary act: the administrative leave appears to be triggered by an administrative investigation into alleged conduct, based on policy and routine, and not because the employer found that the former employee's conduct was "below expectations."

Because the letter is "administrative in nature" and "not evaluative and disciplinary … the letter as a whole is a personnel record" and should be released, "even though it includes the allegations that caused" the administrative leave.

5. Final investigation letter. Although the April 2, 2025 final investigation letter is connected to an internal investigation, the record itself is administrative and was not created by or at the behest of the employer while investigating the former employee, it was generated after investigating. It simply notes that "allegations … have been deemed 'founded,'" and the former employee resigned, without providing specific findings or discussing specific allegations. As such, and in applying the same analysis as the letters above, the final investigation letter is best classified as a personnel record subject to release.

6. Investigative notes. As this Office has consistently concluded, records in an internal affairs file that have been generated at the behest of the employer while investigating a complaint against an employee constitute employee-evaluation or job-performance records. That is, they are records created by or at the behest of an employer; to evaluate the employee; and that details the employee's performance or lack of performance on the job. Thus, because the typed notes were generated by or at the behest of the employer in the course of investigating complaints about the specific former employee, they are best classified as employee-evaluation or job-performance records.

But 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.

The first question, then, is whether the former employee was suspended or terminated. Based on the records and information submitted for my review, it does not appear that the former employee was expressly suspended or terminated. He resigned from the position before any disciplinary action could be taken.

But this Office has consistently concluded that if a resignation is forced, that is, if it is offered in the face of "certain, impending termination," then it qualifies as a "constructive termination" that meets the first element for the disclosure of employee-evaluation and job-performance records. I have not been provided any records or information that indicates whether the former employee in question was going to be terminated. The custodian will need to review and make that determination.

If the custodian determines that the former employee was not suspended or terminated, and that his resignation was voluntary, then the evaluation records must be withheld from release because the first element of the test has not been met.

But if the custodian determines that the resignation amounted to a constructive termination, then the remaining elements likely are met. Because the former officer resigned in 2015, it does not appear that there are any pending appeals, and the second element of the test would be met. Third, the records likely formed the basis for what was constructive termination (if one occurred in the first place). Fourth, the public has a compelling interest in the disclosure of the records in question 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 records, such as these, that reflect violations of office policy.

Thus, if the custodian determines that the former officer was constructively terminated from his employment with the Prairie Grove Police Department, the investigative records that formed the basis for the Department's decision to terminate him should be disclosed. Absent such evidence concerning constructive termination, however, the investigative records must be withheld from release for the reasons discussed above.

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

Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General