Can my Arkansas city withhold the entire internal affairs file on a police officer who was not disciplined?

Subject

Sarah Hardin made a sweeping FOIA request to the City of Lowell for a police officer's records spanning nine categories. The custodian released personnel records with redactions but withheld the evaluation records (memorandums, reprimands, internal affairs file) because the officer was not disciplined. AG Griffin agreed in part: the memorandums, reprimands, and most of the IA file are correctly withheld, but a Call-For-Service Report inside the IA file is a routinely created personnel record that must be disclosed.

Plain-English summary

This opinion sharpens a recurring distinction in Arkansas FOIA practice: the difference between a record's location (in an internal affairs file) and a record's classification (evaluation vs. personnel). The "routine records doctrine" says that routine records do not become evaluation records just because they end up in an IA file.

Sarah Hardin asked the City of Lowell for an officer's records covering nine separate categories. The custodian sorted what existed into two groups: personnel records (released with redactions) and evaluation records (withheld). Hardin asked the AG to review the withholding.

The AG broke the withheld records into four document types:

1. Investigative records (mostly evaluation, withhold). Records in an internal affairs file created by or at the behest of the employer to investigate a complaint about an employee's conduct are evaluation records. This classification covers not just the employer's evaluative documents but also witness statements and interview transcripts that are part of the investigation. Because the officer here was not suspended or terminated, the four-part test fails at the first prong, and these records must be withheld.

2. Reprimands (evaluation, withhold). Created by the employer to evaluate the officer and detail his performance. Evaluation records. Same fate: not disciplined, so withhold.

3. Memorandums (evaluation, withhold). Same analysis. Evaluation records, withheld.

4. CFS Report (PERSONNEL, RELEASE). This is the key holding. A CFS Report (Call-For-Service Report) is a routinely created record generated by employees in the ordinary course of their duties. The AG's office has held repeatedly that "routinely produced records" do not fall within the employee-evaluation exemption, and they "do not later become employee evaluations simply because they are used in an investigation of the employee" (citing the Thomas v. Hall holding). Including a CFS Report in an internal affairs file does not transform it. So the CFS Report is a personnel record, releasable unless disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under the Young v. Rice balancing test. The AG could not see anything in the report to justify a privacy-based withholding, so it should be released.

The opinion also reiterates the mixed-records doctrine: where the records reference other employees, the custodian must run the personnel-record or evaluation-record test for each non-subject employee's information separately and redact accordingly.

What this means for you

If you are a police officer who has been investigated but not disciplined

Most of your internal affairs file is shielded from FOIA disclosure. The memorandums, reprimands, and the investigation's narrative product (interview transcripts, witness statements created at the department's behest) qualify as evaluation records, and without a suspension or termination, they remain confidential. But routinely created records that happen to be filed inside the IA folder, such as your call-for-service reports, your incident reports, your routine paperwork, are personnel records and may be released as part of a FOIA request. The IA folder is not a magic shield over the routine paperwork inside it.

If you are a records custodian for a police department

The routine-records doctrine is doctrinal bedrock. When you receive a FOIA request that touches an internal affairs file:

1. Identify each individual document in the file by type, not just by file location.
2. For each document, ask: was this document created by or at the behest of the employer to evaluate the employee? Or was it routinely created by employees in the course of their duties?
3. Routinely created records (CFS reports, incident reports, dispatch logs, body-camera footage where it exists) are personnel records. Apply the Young v. Rice balancing test and release unless disclosure would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
4. Evaluation records (memorandums, reprimands, witness statements solicited by the department, interview transcripts conducted by the department, formal investigation reports) are subject to the four-part test. Without a suspension or termination, they remain confidential.

Do not treat "in the IA file" as a categorical basis to withhold. The AG has been explicit that location does not control classification.

If you are a FOIA requester wanting records about an officer who was not disciplined

You can probably get the routine paperwork related to the underlying events: CFS reports, incident reports, body-cam where it exists, dispatch records. You generally cannot get the department's internal investigation product, the memorandums summarizing it, or any reprimands issued. Frame your FOIA request to call out specific document types rather than asking generally for "the IA file"; this lets the custodian identify the routine records that are releasable separately from the evaluation records.

If you are a city attorney advising on a comprehensive request

Be careful with the breadth of withholding. A blanket refusal of "everything in the IA file" exposes the city to legal challenge. Walk through document types and apply the appropriate test for each. The AG's CFS Report holding here is a clear signal that the routine-records doctrine survives even when documents are filed inside an IA folder.

Background and statutory framework

The framework matches the other AR FOIA opinions:

• General disclosure test from Legis. Joint Auditing Comm. v. Woosley (1987): public entity, public record, no exemption applies.
• Records held by a public entity are presumed public, rebuttable per Pulaski Cnty. v. Ark. Democrat-Gazette (2007).
• Personnel records under § 25-19-105(b)(12): pertain to the employee but not created by or at the behest of the employer to evaluate the employee. Released unless clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under the Young v. Rice balancing test.
• Evaluation records under § 25-19-105(c)(1): (1) created by or at the behest of the employer (2) to evaluate the employee (3) detailing performance. Thomas v. Hall (2012); Davis v. Van Buren Sch. Dist. (2019). Released only if four-part test (suspension/termination, finality, relevance, compelling public interest) is met.
• Mixed records: custodian applies the appropriate test for each employee's information.

The routine-records doctrine. This is the doctrinal anchor of the opinion's CFS Report holding. The AG cites Thomas v. Hall for the proposition that "routinely produced records" do not fall within the employee-evaluation exemption, and they do not later become evaluation records "simply because they are used in an investigation of the employee" (quoting from Op. 2005-032). The AG also cites Op. 2025-130 for the distinction between supervisors' incident reports, memorandums, transcripts of investigations, and other reports on which evaluations are based, versus "documents routinely created by employees in the course of their duties."

The doctrine has two important implications:

1. Location does not control classification. Including a routinely created record in an IA file does not transform it.
2. Subsequent use does not control classification. A routinely created record that is later used as evidence in an investigation does not become an evaluation record.

Application to the four document types.

• Investigative records (the bulk of the IA file): created by or at the behest of the employer for investigation. Evaluation records. Four-part test fails (no discipline). Withhold.
• Reprimands: created by employer to evaluate the officer. Evaluation records. Withhold.
• Memorandums: created by employer to evaluate the officer. Evaluation records. Withhold.
• CFS Report: routinely created by employees in the course of duties. Personnel record despite being in the IA file. Release.

Mandatory redactions. Personal contact information of public employees under § 25-19-105(b)(13). Other discrete redactions under § 25-19-105(f).

Common questions

Why is a CFS Report inside an IA file still a personnel record?

Because of the routine-records doctrine. A document's classification depends on what it is, not where it is filed. A CFS Report is routinely created by employees in the course of their duties; it is not created at the employer's behest to evaluate an employee. Filing it inside an IA folder does not change what it is.

What is the difference between a "personnel record" and "evaluation record" if both are in the IA file?

The defining question is who created the record and why. Evaluation records are created by or at the behest of the employer to evaluate the employee. Personnel records pertain to the employee but were not created for evaluation purposes. Routine operational records (incident reports, CFS reports, dispatch logs) are personnel records even when they touch the events later investigated.

What if my city's policy is to call all CFS reports "investigation records" once they are filed in an IA folder?

The policy does not control. The AG's analysis is functional, not labelled. The custodian must apply the AG-set definitions, not the city's internal nomenclature.

Why are reprimands and memorandums withheld here when the underlying CFS Report is released?

Because the test depends on the document type. Reprimands and memorandums are created by the employer to evaluate the officer, so they are evaluation records subject to the four-part test (which fails because the officer was not disciplined). The CFS Report was created by an employee in the course of duties, not to evaluate anyone, so it is a personnel record subject only to the personal-privacy test (which it passes).

What if the CFS Report contains sensitive information about a victim or third party?

Then the personal-privacy test under § 25-19-105(b)(12) and the categorical redactions under § 25-19-105(b)(13) and § 25-19-105(f) apply. The AG's holding here was that nothing on the face of the CFS Report rose to the "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" level, but the custodian still has discretion to apply discrete redactions to protect specific intimate details. Mixed-record redactions also apply for any non-subject officers mentioned.

Are interview transcripts and witness statements treated the same as the CFS Report?

No. When the department conducts an interview as part of an investigation, the resulting transcript is created at the behest of the employer. That makes it an evaluation record, even though the interviewee may be a witness rather than the subject. Op. 2000-175 (interview transcripts) and Op. 98-001 (witness statements) treat these as evaluation records.

What if the officer had been suspended even briefly?

Then the level-of-discipline prong of the four-part test would be met for evaluation records, and the analysis would move to finality, relevance, and compelling public interest. The compelling-public-interest prong is presumed for law enforcement misconduct. So a brief suspension can be enough to bring the evaluation records into the public domain.

Can the city blanket-withhold "the IA file"?

No. The AG's analysis here is explicit that the custodian must walk through each document type. Blanket withholdings of internal affairs files run a high risk of being inconsistent with the FOIA, especially when those files contain routinely created records.

Citations

• Arkansas FOIA statutes: A.C.A. § 25-19-103(15)(A) (definition of public records); § 25-19-105(b)(12) (personnel records); § 25-19-105(b)(13) (personal contact info redaction); § 25-19-105(c)(1) (employee-evaluation four-part test); § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (AG opinion request authority); § 25-19-105(f) (additional redactions).
• General FOIA cases: Legis. Joint Auditing Comm. v. Woosley, 291 Ark. 89, 722 S.W.2d 581 (1987); Pulaski Cnty. v. Ark. Democrat-Gazette, Inc., 370 Ark. 435, 260 S.W.3d 718 (2007).
• Personnel records 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).
• Evaluation records cases: Thomas v. Hall, 2012 Ark. 66, 399 S.W.3d 387 (routine-records doctrine); Davis v. Van Buren Sch. Dist., 2019 Ark. App. 466, 572 S.W.3d 466.
• Prior AG opinions on the routine-records doctrine: Op. 2026-026, 2025-111, 2025-130, 2025-063, 2015-057, 2005-032, 2003-257, 98-001.
• Prior AG opinions on interview transcripts and witness statements as evaluation records: Op. 2000-175 (interview transcripts), 98-001 (witness statements).

Source

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

Original opinion text

BOB R. BROOKS JR. JUSTICE BUILDING
101 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
Opinion No. 2026-032
March 30, 2026
Mr. Sarah Hardin
Via email only: [email protected]
Dear Ms. Hardin:
You have requested an opinion from this Office regarding the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Your request, which is made as the requester 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 your correspondence, you made a FOIA request to the City of Lowell for a police officer's records, including "all records reflecting any change in employment status." Specifically, your request lists nine separate categories of records, including (1) personnel, HR, and employment system records; (2) termination, disciplinary, and pre-termination records; (3) supervisory, command, and event documentation; (4) communication and systems data, including metadata; (5) job abandonment or absence classification; (6) internal affairs and investigative records; (7) state, external, and regulatory reporting records; (8) derivative and secondary records; and (9) records retention, deletion, and absence records.

The custodian has decided to release responsive personnel-file records with redactions under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12) but withhold employee-evaluation or job-performance records on the grounds that they do not meet the disclosure criteria of A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1).

Because neither you nor the subject of the records objects to the release of his redacted personnel records, this review is limited to the records the custodian has classified as employee-evaluation records. For purposes of this opinion, I have been provided with unredacted copies of the following withheld records:

• investigative records;
• reprimands;
• CFS Report; and
• memorandums.

You ask whether the custodian's decisions are consistent with the FOIA.

RESPONSE

In my opinion, the custodian's decision to withhold the records is mostly consistent with the FOIA. The memorandums, reprimands, and most of the records in the internal affairs file must be withheld from release as employee-evaluation or job-performance records. But withholding the CFS Report in the internal affairs file is likely inconsistent with the FOIA. That document is best classified as a personnel record, which is subject to release unless its disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

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 City of Lowell, 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, so I will 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." 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. 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.

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 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." 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 the scale tipped in favor of public access," has two steps. 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 de minimis privacy interest. If the privacy interest is minimal, then the records should be disclosed. Second, if the information does give rise to a greater than de minimis privacy interest, then the custodian must determine whether that privacy interest is outweighed by the public's interest in disclosure.

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 interest. 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.

Even if a document, when considered as a whole, meets the test for disclosure, it may contain pieces of information that must be redacted. For instance, the FOIA exempts the personal contact information of public employees from disclosure, including their personal telephone numbers, personal email addresses, and home addresses.

3. Employee-evaluation records. If a document qualifies as an employee-evaluation or job-performance record, it cannot be released unless all the following elements have been met:

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

5. There has been a final administrative resolution of the suspension or termination proceeding (i.e., finality);
6. The records in question formed a basis for the decision made in that proceeding to suspend or terminate the employee (i.e., relevance); and
7. The public has a compelling interest in the disclosure of the records in question (i.e., compelling interest).

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.

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. When a portion of a record is mixed, the custodian should apply the applicable tests for disclosure to that portion of the record.

5. Investigative records, memorandums, and reprimands. This Office has consistently opined that records in an internal affairs file that have been created by or at the behest of the employer as a part of an investigation into a complaint about an employee's conduct qualify as employee-evaluation or job-performance records. This classification applies not only to the employer's evaluative documents but also to materials like witness statements and transcripts. Thus, the investigative records are best classified as employee-evaluation or job-performance records.

Likewise, the custodian has correctly classified the memorandums and reprimands as employee-evaluation or job-performance records because they were created by the employer to evaluate the officer and detail his performance or lack of performance on the job.

The decision to withhold these records turns on whether the four-part test for disclosure of evaluation records has been met. Here, the custodian has stated that the officer was not terminated, demoted, or suspended as a result of anything in the withheld records. Because the first element of the test, suspension or termination, has not been satisfied, the remaining elements need not be considered, and the records must be withheld.

6. CFS Report. The CFS Report, contained in the internal affairs file, appears to be improperly classified as an employee-evaluation or job-performance record. It is my understanding that a CFS Report is a routinely created record generated by employees in the ordinary course of their duties. This Office has repeatedly held that such routinely produced records do not fall within the employee-evaluation exemption, and they do not later become employee evaluations simply because they are used in an investigation of the employee. Thus, to the extent the CFS Report is a routine record created by employees in the course of their duties, it is not transformed into an employee-evaluation or job-performance record by virtue of its inclusion in an internal affairs file. Instead, it is a personnel record and must be disclosed unless disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Based on the face of the report, I cannot determine that its disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

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

Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General