Can a police department release a FOIA-requested suspension report on three named officers when the officers themselves object?
Subject
Whether the El Dorado Police Department's decision to release a suspension report for each of three named officers, in response to a FOIA request, is consistent with the Arkansas FOIA when the officers themselves object.
Plain-English summary
Three El Dorado police officers (Sgt. Ross, Det. Phillips, Officer Burns) used the subject-side AG opinion procedure to challenge their department's decision to release suspension reports about them. The reports detail the grounds for each officer's suspension. The FOIA request that triggered the release came from someone seeking records on officers "found to have engaged in misconduct relevant to credibility, truthfulness, bias, use of excessive force, or other acts bearing upon their honesty or fitness to serve as a law enforcement officer."
The AG agreed with the custodian's release decision. Suspension reports that explain the grounds for the suspension are evaluation records (Op. 2001-276; the bare-fact letter is a personnel record but a letter that "details the incident that gave rise to the discipline" is an evaluation record). The four-part FOIA test for evaluation-record release is met:
- The officers were suspended.
- The suspensions are administratively final.
- The records detail the grounds for suspension.
- The public has a compelling interest in disclosure: AG opinions consistently treat law-enforcement officers as carrying significant public trust, so records reflecting their policy violations meet the compelling-interest test (Ops. 2025-029, 2023-071, 2014-129).
The officers' personal objection does not enter the analysis. The Young v. Rice balancing test (which would otherwise weigh privacy interests) does not apply to evaluation records. And even if it did, the test is objective: the subject's view that disclosure invades their privacy is irrelevant.
What this means for you
If you are a police officer with a sustained-misconduct suspension on file
Once your suspension is administratively final and the report explains the basis, the report is likely releasable under FOIA. The compelling-interest element is essentially built in for sworn officers because of the public-trust rationale. Your subject-side AG opinion request will not block release. Your remedies are limited: appeal the underlying discipline (which may un-finalize element 2), or wait out the records-retention period and rely on those time-limits.
If you are a police chief or records custodian
The El Dorado custodian's classification was correct. Suspension reports that explain the basis are evaluation records, the four-part test is usually met for sworn officers, and the officer's objection is not a basis for withholding. Document your factual analysis (especially element 4 specifics: nature of the infraction, public controversy if any, the officer's rank) so the release decision survives a court challenge.
If you are a journalist or transparency advocate
This opinion is a strong precedent. The compelling-interest analysis for police-misconduct records is a near-presumption in Arkansas. When you request such records and the custodian hesitates, the AG's framing here ("law enforcement officers are invested with significant public trust, [so] there is usually a compelling public interest in records ... that reflect violations of office policy") is the citation to put in your written follow-up.
Common questions
Q: Why don't the officers' privacy interests block release?
A: Because the records are evaluation records (not personnel records), the Young v. Rice "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" test does not apply. The four-part test for evaluation records is the only standard, and an officer's objection is not one of the four elements.
Q: What if an officer's suspension is on appeal?
A: Element 2 (administrative finality) would not be met if a timely appeal is pending. The report stays confidential until the appeal resolves and the discipline becomes final.
Q: What's the threshold for "compelling public interest" for sworn officers?
A: Lower than for most public employees. AG opinions create a near-presumption that records of police policy violations meet the test (Ops. 2025-029, 2023-071, 2014-129). The custodian still does the analysis but should expect to find it satisfied in most cases.
Q: Are personal identifiers (DOB, SSN, home address) released too?
A: Statutory redactions still apply (A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(13) personal contact information; § 25-19-105(b)(2) medical info; AG-opinion redactions for SSN, DOB, etc.). The grounds for the discipline come out; the officer's intimate personal data does not.
Background and statutory framework
A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1) sets the four-part test for releasing employee-evaluation records. The Thomas v. Hall (2012) and Davis v. Van Buren School District (2019) framework defines an evaluation record as one (a) created by or at the behest of the employer (b) to evaluate the employee (c) detailing job performance.
A suspension report is an evaluation record when it explains the basis for the suspension (Op. 2001-276). A report that states the bare fact of suspension without elaboration is a personnel record.
For sworn law-enforcement officers, the compelling-interest element (#4) is consistently met based on the public-trust rationale. AG Ops. 2025-029, 2023-071, 2024-129 (and many earlier opinions) establish a working presumption.
A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) is the procedural vehicle for the subject (or custodian or requester) to ask the AG whether a release decision is consistent with FOIA. The opinion is advisory; the custodian still makes the final call but bears the burden in any subsequent litigation.
Citations and references
Statutes:
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105
Cases:
- Thomas v. Hall, 2012 Ark. 66, 399 S.W.3d 387
- Davis v. Van Buren School District, 2019 Ark. App. 466, 572 S.W.3d 466
- Pulaski County v. Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 370 Ark. 435, 260 S.W.3d 718 (2007)
- Harrill & Sutter v. Farrar, 2012 Ark. 180, 402 S.W.3d 511
Source
Original opinion text
BOB R. BROOKS JR. JUSTICE BUILDING
101 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
Opinion No. 2026-017
February 4, 2026
Sergeant Anthony Ross
Detective Amber Phillips
Officer Ta'Aje Burns
c/o El Dorado Police Department
402 North West Avenue
El Dorado, Arkansas 71730
Dear Sergeant Ross, Detective Phillips, and Officer Burns:
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 we received from the records custodian, the El Dorado Police Department received a FOIA request for records of officers "who have been found to have engaged in misconduct relevant to credibility, truthfulness, bias, use of excessive force, or other acts bearing upon their honesty or fitness to serve as a law enforcement officer." The custodian has provided me with unredacted copies of three records he intends to release: a suspension report for each of you. The custodian has classified the suspension reports as employee evaluations, and he intends to release them because he has determined that the four-part test for release has been met. You object to the release of these records, and you ask if the custodian's decisions are consistent with the FOIA.
RESPONSE
Because the records at issue here are employee evaluations, I will restrict my analysis to that category of records. In my opinion, the custodian has correctly classified the suspension reports as employee-evaluation records. And because the four-part test for release of employee evaluations appears to be met, the custodian's decision to release those records is also consistent with the FOIA.
DISCUSSION
[General-rules discussion of FOIA's three threshold elements and the personnel-vs-evaluation-record framework, applying Pulaski County v. Arkansas Democrat-Gazette and Thomas v. Hall.]
2. Employee-evaluation records. If a document qualifies as an employee-evaluation record, the document cannot be released unless all the following elements have been met:
- The employee was suspended or terminated (i.e., level of discipline);
- There has been a final administrative resolution of the suspension or termination proceeding (i.e., finality);
- The records in question formed a basis for the decision made in that proceeding to suspend or terminate the employee (i.e., relevance); and
- The public has a compelling interest in the disclosure of the records in question (i.e., compelling interest).
As for the final prong, the FOIA never defines the key phrase "compelling public interest." But the leading commentators on the FOIA, referring to this Office's opinions, have offered guidelines: (1) the nature of the infraction that led to suspension or termination, with particular concern as to whether violations of the public trust or gross incompetence are involved; (2) the existence of a public controversy related to the agency and its employees; and (3) the employee's position within the agency. In short, a general interest in the performance of public employees should not be considered compelling because that concern, at least theoretically, always exists. However, a link between a given public controversy, an agency associated with the controversy in a specific way, and an employee within the agency who commits a serious breach of public trust should be sufficient to satisfy the "compelling public interest" requirement.
These commentators also note that "[t]he status of the employee" or "his or her rank within the bureaucratic hierarchy" may be relevant in determining whether a "compelling public interest" exists, which is always a question of fact that must be determined, in the first instance, by the custodian after he considers all the relevant information.
3. Application. Suspension reports are employee evaluations when the reports specify the grounds for the suspensions. Here, the suspension reports at issue recount the grounds for each suspension, so they are best classified as employee-evaluation records.
The four-part test for release of these employee-evaluation records also appears to be met because (1) you were suspended; (2) the suspensions appear to be final; (3) the records detail the grounds for suspension; and (4) there is a compelling public interest in disclosure of the records in question. This Office has consistently opined that, because law enforcement officers are invested with significant public trust, there is usually a compelling public interest in records, such as these, that reflect violations of office policy. Therefore, the custodian's decision to release these suspension reports is consistent with the FOIA.
Assistant Attorney General Jodie Keener prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.
Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General