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 the Arkansas State Police custodian's decision to release contents of state trooper Maness's personnel file (witness statements, interview transcripts from Internal Affairs File B 09-010, and personal emails) is consistent with FOIA, when Maness himself objects.
Plain-English summary
Trooper Maness used the FOIA subject-side opinion procedure to challenge release of three categories of records: written statements he made during an internal affairs investigation, interviews with him during that investigation, and personal emails. The internal affairs investigation (IA File B 09-010) resulted in his suspension for policy violations.
The AG broke the records into two buckets and answered each.
Witness statements and interview transcripts: evaluation records, must be released. Records generated by an internal affairs investigation that detail incidents giving rise to a misconduct allegation are employee-evaluation or job-performance records (Op. 2015-057). The four-part test for evaluation records is satisfied: (1) Maness was suspended; (2) the records formed the basis for suspension; (3) the suspension is administratively final; (4) compelling public interest is met because law enforcement officers carry significant public trust (Ops. 2025-059, 2024-018, 2023-120, 2023-013, 2014-129, 2006-026).
Importantly, evaluation records are governed by A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1), which says they are open "notwithstanding subdivision (b)(12)." So the Young v. Rice "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" balancing test does not apply. The custodian is not allowed to apply it. Once the four-part test is met, release is mandatory subject to other statutory redactions.
Two redactions still need to be made: Maness's SSN appears on a "Department of the Army and the Air Force National Guard Bureau Report of Separation and Record of Service," and his DOB appears on a "Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty." Both must be redacted before release.
Personal emails: depends on content. The medium does not control. Personal emails are not automatically public records just because they were sent during work hours or on work paid time. They become public records only if their content reflects "the performance or lack of performance of official functions" (A.C.A. § 25-19-103(15)(A)). This is a fact-specific question the custodian must answer for each email. The AG declined to make that call. If the custodian determines an email is a public record, it is likely a personnel record (because not created by the employer to evaluate Maness), so the Young v. Rice balancing test would apply.
What this means for you
If you are a state trooper or other sworn officer with internal-affairs records on file
Once your discipline is administratively final, the IA file becomes presumptively releasable as evaluation records. Your privacy objection does not stop release; the privacy-balancing test does not apply to evaluation records. Your remedies are limited: you can file the subject-side AG opinion request (as Maness did here), but the analytical answer is going to be the same in nearly every police-misconduct case.
If you are a records custodian for a law enforcement agency
For internal-affairs files that resulted in suspension or termination, default to release once finality is reached. Apply the four-part test on a record-by-record basis. The compelling-interest element is essentially built in for sworn officers. Strip statutory redactions (SSN, DOB, personal contact info, medical info), and consistency matters: if you redact a piece of information from one document, redact it from every document where it appears.
For personal emails, the content question is yours to answer first. The AG cannot do that for you under § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i). Look at each email and ask: does the content reflect job-performance or official-function activity? If yes, treat as public record (likely personnel record, apply Young v. Rice). If no, the email is not subject to FOIA.
If you are filing a FOIA request for police misconduct records
This opinion confirms that you can get internal-affairs witness statements and interview transcripts when the case resulted in suspension or termination. The privacy objection of the officer does not block release. Personal emails are harder; they require content analysis, and the custodian gets to make the call.
Common questions
Q: Why doesn't the privacy balancing test apply to evaluation records?
A: Because A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1) explicitly says evaluation records are open "notwithstanding subdivision (b)(12)" (the personnel-records privacy provision). The four-part test is the only standard for evaluation records.
Q: What's "compelling public interest" for sworn officers?
A: AG opinions consistently treat law-enforcement officers as carrying significant public trust because they exercise the state's coercive power. Records reflecting their policy violations meet the compelling-interest test in nearly every case (Ops. 2025-059, 2023-120, 2014-129, 2006-026).
Q: What if the IA investigation resulted in something less than suspension or termination?
A: Element 1 of the four-part test fails. The records stay confidential as evaluation records.
Q: Personal emails on a work account: are they public records?
A: Only if their content reflects job-performance or official-function activity. The medium and timing (work account, work hours) do not control. The custodian must look at content (Pulaski County v. Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 370 Ark. at 444).
Q: Whose redactions need to be applied consistently?
A: All of them. If a piece of statutorily exempt information (SSN, DOB, medical) appears in multiple records being released, it must be redacted from each. Inconsistent redactions create liability and leak protected data.
Background and statutory framework
A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1) governs evaluation records and explicitly overrides the personnel-record privacy exemption in (b)(12). Internal-affairs records detailing the basis for misconduct allegations are evaluation records (Op. 2015-057). The four-part test: suspension or termination, finality, relevance, compelling public interest.
For sworn officers, the compelling-interest factor is generally satisfied based on public-trust considerations. AG opinions establish this as a working presumption.
A.C.A. § 25-19-103(15)(A) defines public records by content: writings or electronic information that reflect the performance or lack of performance of official functions. The medium does not control; content does. Personal emails fail this test unless their content shows official-function activity.
Statutory redactions: A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(13) (personal contact info), § 25-19-105(b)(2) (medical), AG-opinion redactions for SSN, DOB, marital status, family member names, banking, intimate financial detail.
Citations and references
Statutes:
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105 (FOIA exemptions)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-103(15)(A) (public records definition)
Cases:
- Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593 (1992)
- Thomas v. Hall, 2012 Ark. 66
- Pulaski County v. Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 370 Ark. 435 (2007)
- Davis v. Van Buren School District, 2019 Ark. App. 466
- Stilley v. McBride, 332 Ark. 306 (1998)
- Legislative Joint Auditing Committee v. Woosley, 291 Ark. 89 (1987)
Source
Original opinion text
BOB R. BROOKS JR. JUSTICE BUILDING
101 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
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
[General-rules discussion of FOIA's three-element framework, personnel-vs-evaluation-record split, the Young v. Rice balancing test for personnel records, and the four-part test for evaluation records.]
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 detailing performance or lack of performance on the job) constitute employee-evaluation or job-performance records. 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.
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.
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 kept and that constitute a record of the performance or lack of performance of official functions, carried out by a public official or employee,." 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. 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).
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