Can the Arkansas State Police release internal-affairs witness statements, transcripts of interviews, and personal emails from a state trooper's personnel file?

Subject

Whether Arkansas State Police may release Steven Chad Maness's internal affairs statements, interviews, and personal emails under FOIA.

Plain-English summary

Steven Chad Maness objected to the Arkansas State Police custodian's proposed release of his written statements, interviews, and personal emails. The statements and interviews were part of Internal Affairs File B 09-010, an investigation that resulted in suspension for policy violations. The Attorney General classified investigation records created by or at the employer's behest to evaluate performance as employee-evaluation or job-performance records.

An evaluation record can be released only when all four statutory conditions are met: suspension or termination, final administrative resolution, the record forming a basis for that decision, and a compelling public interest. The Attorney General found all four met for this file: Maness was suspended, the records formed a basis for suspension, the suspension appeared administratively final, and these records of a law-enforcement officer's policy violations carried a compelling public interest. The opinion says public interest in such records is “usually” compelling because officers are entrusted with significant public trust. It does not create a presumption for every internal affairs file.

The personnel-record privacy balancing test does not apply to these evaluation records. Once the four conditions are met, the records must be released, subject to other specific exemptions. Before release, the custodian needed to redact Maness's Social Security number from a National Guard service record and date of birth from a military discharge record. Portions mentioning other employees may be mixed records requiring individual analysis and, where appropriate, notice to those employees.

The Attorney General did not decide whether Maness's personal emails were public records. Being sent during work hours or paid time is insufficient by itself; the custodian must examine each email's content for a record of official functions. If an email qualifies as a public record and was not made to evaluate Maness, it likely is a personnel record requiring its own privacy analysis.

What this means for you

If you are the subject of an internal affairs file

A final disciplinary decision alone does not make an evaluation file releasable. The record must also form a basis for suspension or termination, and disclosure must serve a compelling public interest. The Attorney General found those facts satisfied for this particular file and identified specific personal details to remove before release.

If you are a law-enforcement records custodian

Classify investigation records by how and why they were created, then assess each of the four evaluation-record release conditions. The opinion's public-interest conclusion rests on these records reflecting an officer's policy violations; it says the inquiry is usually compelling in such circumstances, not automatic. Check for other exemptions and for mixed portions about other employees. Review personal emails by content rather than timing or account alone.

If you request police records

This opinion supports release of the statements and interviews in File B 09-010 because the Attorney General found every release condition met. It does not say every investigation ending in discipline meets the test or that the personal emails must be disclosed.

Common questions

Q: Does administrative finality alone open an internal affairs file? A: No. Evaluation records also require suspension or termination, a record forming a basis for that action, and a compelling public interest.

Q: Is compelling interest presumed for all sworn officers?
A: No. The opinion says it “usually” exists for records reflecting policy violations by law-enforcement officers and finds it satisfied for this file.

Q: Could the custodian apply the personnel-record privacy balancing test to these interviews? A: No. The opinion says A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1) makes evaluation records open notwithstanding the personnel-record privacy provision once its release conditions are met. Other specific exemptions may still require redactions.

Q: Are personal emails on a work account automatically public? A: No. The custodian must decide from each email's content whether it records an official function. The Attorney General said that initial public-record question fell outside his review.

Q: What about other employees named in the interviews?
A: Their information may make portions mixed records. The opinion calls for individual analysis and appropriate notice to affected employees.

Background and statutory framework

A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1) governs release of employee-evaluation or job-performance records and displaces the privacy balancing test in subsection (b)(12) for those records. The opinion describes internal affairs statements and interview transcripts produced to evaluate alleged misconduct as evaluation records. A.C.A. § 25-19-103(15)(A) supplies the public-record definition applied to emails. A content-based decision about those emails remains with the custodian.

Citations and references

• A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1), opinion footnote 21 and discussion of the four conditions.
• A.C.A. § 25-19-103(15)(A), opinion footnote 27 and email discussion.
• Arkansas AG opinions on internal affairs records and compelling interest, opinion footnotes 24–26.

Source

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

Original opinion text

Opinion No. 2026-016

February 2, 2026

Steven Chad Maness
Arkansas State Police
Via email only: [email protected]

Dear Mr. Maness:

You have requested an opinion from this Office regarding the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Your request, which is made as the subject 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 correspondence I received from the records custodian, the Arkansas State Police received a FOIA request for your personnel file. You report that the custodian intends to release records from your personnel file with redactions. You only object to the release of your personal statements, personal emails, and interviews, stating that the release of those records is a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. I have been provided with redacted copies of the records for my review. You ask whether the custodian’s decisions are consistent with the FOIA.

RESPONSE

In my opinion, the custodian’s decision to release the records is partially consistent with the FOIA. The personal statements and interviews are best classified as employee-evaluation or job- performance records which are subject to release since all four elements for the test for disclosure have been met, subject to the necessary redactions discussed in Section 5. The personal emails are only subject to disclosure under the FOIA if they qualify as “public records,” meaning they reflect the performance (or lack thereof) of official duties by a public employee. If the custodian determines that any of these communications meet that definition, they are likely to be considered personnel records and must be evaluated under the balancing test described in Section 2.

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

                         BOB R. BROOKS JR. JUSTICE BUILDING
                             101 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE
                           LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
   

Steven Chad Maness
Opinion No. 2026-016
Page 2

FOIA.1 Second, the requested document must constitute a public record.2 Third, the document must not be subject to an exemption.3

The first two elements appear to be met here. The request was made to the Arkansas State Police, which is a public entity subject to the FOIA.4 And the records at issue appear to be public records.5 Because these records are held by a public entity, they are presumed to be public records,6 although that presumption is rebuttable.7 I have no information, however, to suggest that the presumption can be rebutted, so I will turn to whether any exemptions prevent the documents’ release.

For purposes of the FOIA, employees’ personnel files8 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.9 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.10

The test for whether these two types of documents may be released differs significantly. When reviewing documents to determine whether to release them under the FOIA, the custodian must

1
Legis. Joint Auditing Comm. v. Woosley, 291 Ark. 89, 91, 722 S.W.2d 581, 582 (1987).
2
Id.
3
Id.
4
See, e.g., A.C.A. § 25-19-103(13)(B).
5
The FOIA defines public records as “writings, recorded sounds, films, tapes, electronic or computer-based information, or data compilations in any medium, required by law to be kept or otherwise kept, and that constitute a record of the performance or lack of performance of official functions … carried out by a public official or employee.” A.C.A. § 25-19-103(15)(A). 6 Id.
7
See Pulaski Cnty. v. Ark. Democrat-Gazette, Inc., 370 Ark. 435, 440–41, 260 S.W.3d 718, 722 (2007) (“[T]he presumption of public record status established by the FOIA can be rebutted if the records do not otherwise fall within the definition found in the first sentence, i.e., if they do not ‘constitute a record of the performance or lack of performance of official functions.’” (quoting Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2005-095)). 8 “Personnel files” are not referenced in the FOIA but typically includes the following documents: employment applications; school transcripts; payroll-related documents such as information about reclassifications, promotions, or demotions; transfer records; health- and life-insurance forms; performance evaluations; recommendation letters; disciplinary-action records; requests for leave-without-pay; certificates of advanced training or education; and legal documents such as subpoenas. E.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2016-104, 97-368; John J. Watkins et al., The Arkansas Freedom of Information Act 203–04 (6th ed. 2017). 9 See, e.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2015-072, 99-147.
10
Thomas v. Hall, 2012 Ark. 66, at 8–9, 399 S.W.3d 387, 392; see also Davis v. Van Buren Sch. Dist., 2019 Ark. App. 466, 7–8, 572 S.W.3d 466, 471 (noting that “[o]ur supreme court has approved” the definition of employee-evaluation

Steven Chad Maness
Opinion No. 2026-016
Page 3

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. Personnel records. A personnel record is open to public inspection except “to the extent that
   disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”11 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.12 The balancing test, which takes place “with the scale tipped in favor of public access,” has two steps.13

First, the custodian must assess whether the information contained in the requested document is of a personal or intimate nature such that it gives rise to a greater than minimal privacy interest.14 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.15

Because the exceptions must be narrowly construed, the person resisting disclosure bears the burden of showing that, under the circumstances, the employee’s privacy interests outweigh the public’s interests.16 The fact that the subject of the records may consider release of the records an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy is irrelevant to the analysis because the test is objective.17

Even if a document, when considered as a whole, meets the test for disclosure, it may contain discrete pieces of information that must be redacted.18 For instance, the FOIA exempts employees social security numbers, dates of birth, and the personal contact information of certain public

records developed by the Attorney General’s Office); Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2015-057, 2009-067, 2006-038, 2003- 073, 95-351, 93-055. 11 A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12).
12
308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992).
13
Watkins et al., supra note 8, at 208.
14
Young, 308 Ark. at 598, 826 S.W.2d at 255.
15
Id.
16
Stilley v. McBride, 332 Ark. 306, 313, 965 S.W.2d 125, 128 (1998).
17
E.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2016-055, 2001-112, 2001-028, 94-198; Watkins et al., supra note 8, at 207.
18
A.C.A. § 25-19-105(f).

Steven Chad Maness
Opinion No. 2026-016
Page 4

employees from disclosure, including their personal telephone numbers, personal email addresses, and home addresses.19

3. Employee-evaluation records. The second relevant exception is for “employee evaluation or
   job performance records.” This exception includes records generated while investigating allegations of employee misconduct that detail incidents that gave rise to an allegation of misconduct.20

If a document qualifies as an employee-evaluation record, the document cannot be released unless all the following elements have been met:

1. The employee was suspended or terminated (i.e., level of discipline);

2. There has been a final administrative resolution of the suspension or termination proceeding (i.e., finality);

3. The records in question formed a basis for the decision made in that proceeding to suspend or terminate the employee (i.e., relevance); and

4. The public has a compelling interest in the disclosure of the records in question (i.e., compelling interest).21

The primary purpose of this exception is to preserve the confidentiality of the formal job- evaluation process in order to promote honest exchanges between employees and their employers.22

4. Mixed records. Some employee-related records are “mixed records” because they are (1) more
   than one person’s evaluation, (2) at least one person’s evaluation and at least one person’s personnel record, or (3) more than one person’s personnel record.23 When a portion of a record is mixed, the custodian should apply the applicable tests for disclosure to that portion of the record.

5. Classification and disclosure of written statements and interviews. You object to the release
   of your written statements, personal emails, and interviews contained in your records. The written statements and interviews are records that were included as a part of Internal Affairs File No. B 09-010. That investigation resulted in a suspension for policy violations. 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 (evaluating the employee and

19
See id. § 25-19-105(b)(13).
20
E.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2015-057 (collecting citations).
21
A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1).
22
E.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 96-168.
23
See Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2020-037.

Steven Chad Maness
Opinion No. 2026-016
Page 5

detailing performance or lack of performance on the job) constitute employee-evaluation or job- performance records.24 Thus witness statements and transcripts of interviews conducted during the investigation—that were generated by or at the behest of the employer in the course of investigating complaints are best classified as employee-evaluation or job-performance records.25 These employee-evaluation or job-performance records cannot be released unless the four previously discussed elements for disclosure have been met.

For Internal Affairs File No. B 09-010, all four elements have been met: (1) you were suspended; (2) the records formed a basis for the suspension; (3) the suspension appears to be administratively final, and (4) the public has a compelling public interest in the disclosure of the records because, as this Office has consistently opined, law-enforcement officers are vested with significant public trust, so there is usually a compelling public interest in records, such as these, that reflect policy violations.26

Unlike personnel records, employee-evaluation or job-performance records are governed by A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1), which explicitly states that such records are open “notwithstanding subdivision (b)(12).” Thus, these records, including the written statements and interviews, are not subject to the “clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” exception. The custodian is not required—and indeed is not permitted—to apply the Young v. Rice balancing test to these records. Once the statutory threshold for release has been met, the records must be released under the FOIA, subject to other specific statutory exemptions that may require redactions.

The following information is not currently redacted from the records but should be:

• Your Social Security Number in the record entitled “Department of the Army and the Air Force National Guard Bureau Report of Separation and Record of Service.”

• Your date of birth on the record entitled “Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.”

To the extent that these written statements and interviews mention other public employees, they are mixed records and likely constitute the personnel records of the other public employees. Such mixed records require individualized analysis and, where appropriate, notification of the other affected employees.

6. Classification and disclosure of personal emails. Personal emails are not automatically public
   records subject to the FOIA simply because they were sent during work hours or on paid time. The FOIA defines public records as “writings, recorded sounds, films, tapes, electronic or computer- based information, or data compilations in any medium, required by law to be kept or otherwise

24
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2025-059, 2007-311, 97-081, 92-319; see also Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2004-178.
25
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2000-175 (interview transcripts), 98-001 (witness statements).
26
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2025-059, 2024-018, 2023-120, 2023-013, 2014-129, 2006-026.

Steven Chad Maness
Opinion No. 2026-016
Page 6

kept and that constitute a record of the performance or lack of performance of official functions … carried out by a public official or employee ….”27 Thus, each email must be evaluated to determine whether it meets this definition before it can be considered a public record subject to the FOIA. This is a fact-specific inquiry that depends on the contents of each email, not how or when it was created.28 I am not authorized to determine whether your personal emails are public records, as that question falls outside the scope of my review under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i).29

If an email does qualify as a public record, it is likely a personnel record, assuming it pertains to you as an employee and was not created by or at the behest of your employer to evaluate you. In that case, the custodian must apply the Young v. Rice balancing test to determine whether the record should be released.

Assistant Attorney General Justin Hughes prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.

Sincerely,

TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General

27
A.C.A. § 25-19-103(15)(A) (emphasis added).
28
See Pulaski Cnty. v. Ark. Democrat-Gazette, Inc., 370 Ark. 435, 444, 260 S.W.3d 718, 724 (2007) (discussing this issue at length). 29 See, e.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2020-002, 2012-001.