How does an Arkansas city sort through a police officer's complete personnel file for a FOIA release? Which records go out, which get redacted, and which stay confidential?

Plain-English summary

Someone filed a FOIA request to the City of Fayetteville for a police officer's personnel file. The custodian planned to release the file with redactions. The AG opinion is a category-by-category guide on what comes out, what gets redacted, and what stays confidential.

Category-by-category rulings:

1. Administrative records (job applications, transcripts, training certificates, oath of office, payroll forms, leave requests). Mostly releasable as personnel records. The college transcript is exempt under longstanding AG opinions. Multiple specific items must be redacted: personal contact info, employee ID numbers (computer-security exempt), marital status, dates of birth, SSN, driver's license numbers, insurance coverage, tax info, payroll deductions, names of children/spouses, net pay, banking info, intimate financial details. The opinion catches the custodian making inconsistent redactions (an acronym redacted in one form but unredacted in another) and tells him to apply redactions consistently.

2. Medical records (Workers' Comp medical reports, urinalysis, audiograms, hospital records). Withhold. Workers' Comp medical records are personnel records but exempt under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(2)'s medical-records exemption.

3. Commendations (text screenshot, citizen-compliment emails, third-party thank-you). Release as personnel records. Unsolicited commendations from third parties are not employer-created and not evaluation records.

4. Police employee evaluations. Withhold. Evaluation records require all four (c)(1) elements; here the officer was not suspended or terminated based on the evaluations, so element one fails.

5. Performance improvement plans. Release. The PIPs are evaluation records, but here all four elements are met: the officer was given the PIP because of a suspension; the suspension is administratively final; the plan is relevant to the suspension; and the public has a compelling interest in police-officer policy violations.

6. Written reprimands. Withhold. Written reprimands are evaluation records, but here no suspension or termination resulted ("further occurrences … will result in more severe disciplinary action"), so element one fails.

7. Suspensions. Release. The "Written Reprimand & Suspension" letters specify the grounds for suspension, making them evaluation records that meet all four elements.

8. "Action History" anonymous-user screenshots. Outside the AG's review scope under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) because they are neither personnel records nor evaluations.

9. Mixed records. A list of multiple employee names is a mixed record. Other employees' names properly redacted; the custodian missed one and should fix it.

The compelling-public-interest framework for police records. The AG reiterates: "law-enforcement officers are invested with a significant public trust, so there is usually a compelling public interest in a record … that reflects violations of office policy."

What this means for you

If you are a police records custodian

Use this opinion as a working checklist:
1. Sort the file into the nine categories.
2. For administrative records, release with the standard redaction list.
3. For medical records (any Workers' Comp records, examinations, lab results), withhold under (b)(2).
4. For unsolicited third-party praise or complaints, release as personnel records.
5. For employee evaluations, run the four-element test.
6. For PIPs, run the four-element test (often releasable when tied to suspension).
7. For written reprimands without a suspension or termination, withhold.
8. For suspension letters that state the grounds, release.
9. Apply redactions consistently (don't miss the same data in another form).

If you are a city attorney

The opinion gives you a defensible template. Two trap doors to watch:
- Inconsistent redactions across forms (the AG flagged this).
- Mixing categorical "personnel record" framing with substantive evaluation analysis. Each document gets its own category-by-category analysis.

If you are a journalist seeking police accountability records

Targeted requests work better than wholesale ones. Examples:
- "Suspension letters with stated grounds" tend to be releasable.
- "Performance improvement plans tied to a suspension" are releasable.
- "Internal investigation reports without resulting suspension/termination" are not.
- Routine evaluations are not.

If you are a police officer

Your standard performance evaluations stay confidential unless you are suspended or terminated based on them. Your discipline letters' release status depends on whether the discipline was a written reprimand only (confidential) or a written reprimand plus suspension (releasable when grounds are stated).

Common questions

Why are college transcripts exempt?
AG Opinions 2025-044, 2003-060 hold that transcripts are exempt regardless of whether they are in a personnel file.

Why are work emails releasable but personal emails not?
Work emails are creature of public employment. Personal emails are personal contact information protected under (b)(13).

Are Workers' Comp records always exempt?
The medical records part of Workers' Comp is exempt under (b)(2). Administrative Workers' Comp records (claim numbers, dates, etc.) may be more nuanced.

What's the difference between a written reprimand and a suspension letter?
A written reprimand is a warning; a suspension letter is discipline that removes the employee from work. Both are evaluation records, but only suspension or termination triggers the path to release.

Why is the requester's intent irrelevant?
"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." Don't ask why they want it; that is not a basis for withholding.

What about names of children, spouses, ex-spouses in the record?
Always redact. AG Opinions 2018-084, 2006-165, 2002-237.

Driver's license number in the file?
Redact. AG Op. 2007-025.

Background and statutory framework

Personnel records under § 25-19-105(b)(12). Subject to the Young v. Rice balancing test (greater-than-de-minimis privacy interest weighed against public interest, scale tipped toward access).

Employee-evaluation/job-performance records under § 25-19-105(c)(1). Three-element definition (created by or at the behest of the employer; to evaluate; detailing performance). Four-element release test (suspension/termination; administrative finality; record formed the basis; compelling public interest).

Medical records exemption under § 25-19-105(b)(2). Specific medical information about the employee concerning treatment or diagnosis. AG Opinions 2000-232, 2000-226, 99-110, 99-042, 98-261, 98-202, 96-203, 91-374, 87-070.

Categories of standard releasable personnel record items. AG opinions establish that the following are releasable: confirmation of employment, dates of hire, education background, training, certifications, signed acknowledgments of policies, pre-employment background investigations, change-of-status records without reasons, employee race and gender, employee names, salaries, payroll records, general resignation letters.

Standard redaction list. Personal contact info ((b)(13)), employee ID numbers (Op. 2022-032), marital status, dates of birth, SSN, driver's license, insurance coverage, tax info, payroll deductions, names of children/spouses, net pay, banking info, intimate financial detail.

Compelling public interest in police records. AG Opinions 2023-071, 2023-013, 2014-129, 2006-026: "law-enforcement officers are invested with a significant public trust, so there is usually a compelling public interest in a record … that reflects violations of office policy."

Citations

Statutes:
- A.C.A. § 25-19-103 (FOIA definitions)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105 (exemptions; (b)(2) medical; (b)(11) computer security; (b)(12) personnel; (b)(13) personal contact; (c)(1) evaluation release; (c)(3) AG review; (f) redaction)

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

Source

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

Original opinion text

Full opinion text is unusually long (over 200 lines, covering nine record categories with extensive footnotes). See the linked landing page above for the complete text. The substantive analysis is reproduced in summary form throughout this page.

BOB R. BROOKS JR. JUSTICE BUILDING
101 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
Opinion No. 2025-105
October 2, 2025
Blake Pennington
Senior Assistant City Attorney
113 W. Mountain Street, Suite 302
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701

Dear Mr. Pennington:

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 a copy of a police officer's personnel file from the City of Fayetteville. The custodian identified certain employee records as responsive to this request, and the custodian intends to disclose all of those records with redactions. 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 (transcripts, employee information reports, personnel action forms, oath of office, employee gym agreement, hire forms, drug-free workplace acknowledgments, safety policy, FMLA forms, and many more); medical records (medical examination reports, urinalysis, audiogram, worker's compensation reports, hospital discharge instructions); commendations (third-party text screenshot, citizen compliment emails); police employee evaluations; performance development plans; written reprimands; and "Written Reprimand & Suspension" letters.

The subject of the records objects to the release of the records, questions the requester's motives for making the request, and "would like the Attorney General to review the FOIA request of [his] personnel file in its entirety." 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 City of Fayetteville'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 for the reasons outlined in the opinion.

DISCUSSION

[Full DISCUSSION section omitted in this enriched reproduction; see linked landing page for complete text. Key holdings reproduced below by category:]

3. Administrative records: best classified as personnel records; subject to release except for the college transcript (consistently exempt per Ark. Att'y Gen. Ops. 2025-044, 2003-060) and standard redactions for personal contact info, employee ID, marital status, DOB, SSN, driver's license, insurance, tax info, payroll deductions, names of children/spouses, net pay, banking info, intimate financial detail. Custodian must apply redactions consistently across forms.

4. Medical records: exempt under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(2).

5. Commendations from third parties: personnel records subject to release; not transformed into evaluations by the third-party origin.

6. Employee evaluations: evaluation records; not releasable because employee not suspended/terminated based on the evaluations.

7. Performance improvement plans: evaluation records; releasable here because the officer was suspended (so element 1), the suspension is administratively final (element 2), the plan is relevant (element 3), and there is a compelling public interest in police policy-violation records (element 4).

8. Written reprimands: evaluation records; not releasable because no suspension/termination resulted.

9. Suspension letters with grounds stated: evaluation records meeting all four release elements; subject to release.

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

Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General