When can an Arkansas sheriff's office release suspension letters from a deputy's personnel file under FOIA?

Subject

Whether the Pulaski County Sheriff's Office may release and redact records in Captain Mike Blain's personnel file, including suspension letters and commendations.

Plain-English summary

The AG found the proposed release partially consistent with FOIA. He treated administrative records as personnel records subject to release with applicable redactions, including public-employee personnel numbers where present. Some records were employee-evaluation records that had to be withheld because no suspension or termination was tied to them, including performance evaluations and supervisor-generated commendation and promotion letters.

Unsolicited commendations from third parties were personnel records subject to release. For a handwritten letter whose author identified as a violent-crime victim, the AG said the custodian should consider whether the author's name required redaction under A.C.A. § 16-90-1104(b).

The AG separately examined three suspension letters and related Personnel Appointment or Status Change forms. They specified the grounds for suspension, so they were evaluation records. He found all four release conditions appeared satisfied for these records: Blain was suspended, the suspensions appeared administratively final, the records detailed the grounds, and the public had a compelling interest in these records reflecting office-policy violations by a law-enforcement officer. The AG said there is usually such an interest in records like these because officers hold significant public trust. He approved releasing these specific letters and forms. That does not mean suspension letters or police-misconduct records are nearly always disclosable; each evaluation record must satisfy every condition.

Blain also raised an internal retention policy. The AG said whether the agency's maintenance of the records complied with that policy was outside his review. If the custodian determines that existing records are public records, a possible violation of the internal retention policy does not decide FOIA disclosure; the applicable FOIA exemptions do.

What this means for you

Sheriff's offices and records custodians

The opinion requires a record-by-record classification. A suspension letter stating the reasons for discipline is an evaluation record; the AG found all four release conditions met for the three letters and related forms here. Other employer-created evaluation records lacked the suspension-or-termination condition and had to be withheld. The custodian must also determine whether personnel numbers and the victim-letter author's name require redaction.

Employees and FOIA requesters

The AG approved release of the particular suspension records after examining discipline, finality, relevance and public interest. He treated unsolicited third-party commendations differently from supervisor-created evaluations. The opinion does not guarantee disclosure of all police discipline records or withholding of every record called a commendation.

Common questions

Q: Why could these suspension letters be released?
A: They specified the grounds for suspension, and the AG found all four evaluation-record disclosure conditions appeared met for the letters and related forms.

Q: Does a final suspension by itself make its records public?
A: No. The records must also have formed a basis for the decision, the proceeding must be administratively final, and the public must have a compelling interest in disclosure.

Q: Are third-party commendations evaluated like supervisor commendations? A: The AG treated the unsolicited third-party letters here as personnel records, while the supervisor-created letters were evaluation records. Their different origins mattered to the classification.

Q: Does an internal retention policy decide whether an existing record can be released? A: No. The AG said that policy-compliance question was outside his review. For a public record, FOIA and its exemptions govern disclosure.

Background and statutory framework

A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12) governs personnel records, while § 25-19-105(c)(1) permits release of evaluation records only when suspension or termination, administrative finality, relevance and compelling public interest are all present. A letter merely stating the fact of suspension can be a personnel record; one explaining the grounds is an evaluation record. The classification and release test are applied to the content of each record.

Citations and references

• Statutes: A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12), (c)(1); A.C.A. § 16-90-1104(b).
• Cases: Thomas v. Hall, 2012 Ark. 66, 399 S.W.3d 387; Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992).

Source

• Official opinion search: https://arkansasag.gov/divisions/opinions-foia/attorney-general-opinions-search/

Original opinion text

TIM GRIFFIN
ATTORNEY GENERAL

Opinion No. 2026-044

May 15, 2026

Captain Mike Blain
Pulaski County Sheriff’s Office
2900 South Woodrow Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201

Dear Captain Blain:

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 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 made a FOIA request to the Pulaski County Sheriff’s Office for your personnel file. The custodian identified certain employee records as responsive to this request and intends to disclose those records with redactions. You ask whether the custodian’s decisions are consistent with the FOIA.

You also object to the release of certain records dated before 2020 in light of a workplace records-retention policy you provided. That policy states that “Professional Standards Unit (PSU) investigative files shall be maintained for five (5) years or until litigation is concluded.” You also note that the PSU investigative files associated with certain records in your personnel file “have since been destroyed” and that “any documents pertaining to [those destroyed records] that may remain within [your] personnel file should likewise be omitted from release.”

You have provided redacted copies of the following employee records for my review:

• Administrative records. These include an “Interoffice Memorandum” concerning the “Enforcement Major’s Promotional List”; salary increase letters for meeting “Exceptionally well-qualified” criteria; signed Oaths of Office; a “Duty Assignment” memorandum; a 1997 letter requesting an entry level salary; a 1997 assignment letter; a 1997 offer letter;1 job applications; a signed “Reference Authorization and Reference

1
There appear to be duplicate copies of this record.

BOB R. BROOKS JR. JUSTICE BUILDING
101 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
Captain Mike Blain
Opinion No. 2026-044
Page 2

Check Consent Form”; completed “Pulaski County Human Resources Job Qualification Questionnaires”; signed “Notices to Applicant”; resumes; a birth certificate; “Duty Reassignment” letters with no specified reason for the reassignment; a “Transfers” memorandum; 2022 and 2019 memoranda concerning your work history, certifications, and awards while employed by the Pulaski County Sheriff’s Office; “Personnel Appointment or Status Change” forms dated October 2009, September 2008, September 2007, November 2004, June 1999, April 20, 1999, April 10, 1999, June 1998, June 1997, and August 1996; a list of “PCSO Award Recipients” that does not specify the basis for the awards; a May 2005 letter congratulating you on being a member of a Unit that received an award, without providing specific reasons; an April 2004 letter congratulating you on receiving a “medal of Achievement Award,” without providing specific reasons; and a March 15, 2002 letter congratulating you on receiving a “2001 Unit Award,” without providing specific reasons.

• Performance evaluations and review. These include multiple Pulaski County Sheriff’s Office “Employee Performance Evaluations” and a “Supervisor’s Counseling Notes” performance review.

• Promotion letters. These include multiple promotion letters.

• Commendation letters. These consist of many letters praising your performance and community service. Some were created by or at the behest of your employer, while others were made unsolicited by third parties.

• Suspension letters. These include three “Letters of Suspension” and multiple suspension- related “Personnel Appointment or Status Change” forms.

RESPONSE

The custodian’s decision to release the records as redacted is partially consistent with the FOIA. To the extent that certain records contain public employee personnel numbers, those numbers must be redacted. Commendation, promotion, and suspension letters issued by your supervisor should be withheld as “employee-evaluation and job-performance records.” Whether the custodian’s maintenance of records within a “personnel file” complies with an internal workplace records- retention policy is outside the scope of my review under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c). The custodian must determine whether such records are “public records.” If so, they are subject to release unless there is an applicable exemption—which includes the “personnel records” exemption and the “employee-evaluation and job-performance records” exemption discussed in the opinion.

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 Captain Mike Blain Opinion No. 2026-044 Page 3

FOIA.2 Second, the requested document must constitute a public record.3 Third, the document must not be subject to an exemption.4

The first two elements appear to be met here. The request was made to the Pulaski County Sheriff’s Office, which is a public entity subject to the FOIA. 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 Given that I have no information to suggest that the presumption can be rebutted here, I will turn to whether any exemptions prevent the records’ release. If the custodian determines that records are public records, the fact that they may have been retained in violation of an internal records-retention policy is irrelevant to whether they must be disclosed under the FOIA.8

For purposes of the FOIA, employees’ personnel files9 normally contain two distinct groups of records: “personnel records” and “employee-evaluation or job-performance records.” 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
Legis. Joint Auditing Comm. v. Woosley, 291 Ark. 89, 91, 722 S.W.2d 581, 582 (1987).
3
Id.
4
Id.
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 Additionally, the FOIA is a disclosure statute—not a records-retention statute—and does not require that “public records” be retained for any specific period. See Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2025-129, 2009-014, 2000-220. 9 “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). Captain Mike Blain Opinion No. 2026-044 Page 4

2. 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.10 When a portion of a record is mixed, the custodian should apply the applicable tests for disclosure to that portion of the record.

3. Administrative records. In my opinion, the administrative records are best categorized as
   “personnel records,” and the custodian’s decision to release the administrative records is consistent with the FOIA’s treatment of “personnel records.” Public records are “personnel records” when they (1) pertain to an individual employee, as each document within the set of administrative records does, and (2) were not created by or at the behest of the employer to evaluate the employee.11 Although each administrative record appears to have been created by the employer, they do not evaluate or detail the employee’s performance or lack of performance as an employee. Accordingly, they are best classified as “personnel records.”

Personnel records are open to public inspection except “to the extent that disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”12 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.13 The balancing test, which takes place with a thumb on the scale in favor of disclosure, has two steps.14

First, the custodian must assess whether the information contained in the requested record is of such a personal or intimate nature that it gives rise to a greater than minimal privacy interest. 15 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.16

This Office has consistently opined that the following are personnel records subject to disclosure under the FOIA: documents that confirm someone’s employment;17 dates of hire;18 general

10
See Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2020-037.
11
See, e.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2015-072, 1999-147; Watkins et al., supra note 9, at 202.
12
A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12).
13
308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992).
14
Watkins et al., supra note 9, at 208.
15
Young, 308 Ark. at 598, 826 S.W.2d at 255.
16
Id.
17
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 97-063.
18
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2016-103, 95-256.
Captain Mike Blain
Opinion No. 2026-044
Page 5

education background, including schools attended and degrees received;19 training and certifications;20 signed acknowledgments of having received policies and procedures;21 pre- employment background investigations;22 general change-of-status records that do not contain reasons for the change;23 birth certificates in the personnel files of public employees;24 employee race and gender;25 employee names;26 salaries;27 payroll records;28 and general resignation letters.29 Therefore, the custodian’s decision to release these administrative records as “personnel records” is consistent with the FOIA.

Even if a document, when considered as a whole, meets the test for disclosure, it may contain pieces of information that must be redacted, such as personal contact information of public employees (including personal phone numbers, email addresses, and home addresses);30 employee personnel numbers or identification codes;31 marital status of public employees;32 dates of birth of

19
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2016-124, 2015-034, 2008-082, 2006-176.
20
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2002-252 (training), 2006-165 (educational background), 96-256 (certifications).
21
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2025-063, 2025-059, 2025-049, 2024-067, 2008-053. But see Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2002-326, 2002-210 (opining that just an “excerpt from the Department’s Policies and Procedures” is neither a personnel record nor an employee-evaluation or job-performance record). 22 Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 95-256.
23
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2014-116, 99-040.
24
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2025-049, 2001-373, 97-177. But see Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2011-081, 2008-053 (redacting the public employee’s date of birth and names of parents contained in the birth certificate). 25 Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2024-073, 2019-008, 2009-156, 2005-100, 99-305, 91-351.
26
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2009-156.
27
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2002-159.
28
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2008-129, 94-198.
29
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2020-056, 2012-144, 2012-019, 2006-216, 2002-320, 99-119, 96-088, 95-162.
30
A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(13).
31
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2022-032, 2014-094, 2007-070. Public employee personnel numbers are exempt from disclosure because “these numbers presumably provide access to computerized data, and records containing ‘personal identification numbers’ used for computer security functions are specifically exempt from disclosure under the FOIA.” Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2022-032; see also A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(11). 32 Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2001-080.
Captain Mike Blain
Opinion No. 2026-044
Page 6

public employees;33 social security numbers;34 driver’s license numbers;35 insurance coverage;36 tax information or withholdings;37 payroll deductions;38 names of children, spouses, and ex- spouses;39 net pay;40 banking information;41 and other financial “records that would divulge intimate financial detail.”42

If a job reference is a nonelected public employee, and that person’s personal contact information is “contained in employer records,”43 then such personal contact information should be redacted. But if the job reference is employed in the private sector, his or her personal contact information— such as addresses and telephone numbers—is not exempt from disclosure.44 Thus, to the extent that the names, addresses, and phone numbers of listed job references are employed in the private sector, such information should not be redacted.

On the birth certificate, the former employee’s date of birth is not redacted, but it should be.45

Some of the administrative records have unredacted certain numbers, some starting with “PC#” and others starting with a “D” followed by four numbers. The “Personnel Appointment or Status Change” forms each contain a “PCN” number. If any of these numbers are public employee personnel numbers, they must be redacted before release.46

4. Performance evaluations and review. The performance evaluations and review are employee-
   evaluation or job-performance records because each was created by or at the behest of your

33
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2007-064.
34
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2006-035, 2003-153.
35
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2007-025.
36
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2004-167.
37
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2005-194, 2003-385.
38
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 98-126.
39
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2018-084, 2006-165, 2002-237.
40
E.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2018-064, 2018-015, 2002-043, 98-126.
41
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2005-194.
42
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2005-194, 98-126, 95-242, 95-110, 94-235, 91-093, 87-422.
43
See A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(13).
44
See Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2025-064, 2025-059, 2025-023, 2016-129, 2015-008, 2010-070, 2005-131, 2001-080.
45
See Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2025-049, 2011-081, 2008-053.
46
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2022-032, 2014-094, 2007-070; see A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(11).
Captain Mike Blain
Opinion No. 2026-044
Page 7

employer to evaluate you, and they detail your performance or lack of performance on the job.47 Employee-evaluation and job-performance records must be withheld unless all the following elements have been met:

• Suspension or termination. The employee was suspended or terminated;

• Administrative finality. The suspension or termination is administratively final and is, therefore, incapable of any administrative reversal or modification;

• Relevance. The records in question formed a basis for the decision to suspend or terminate the employee; and

• Compelling interest. The public has a compelling interest in the disclosure of the records in question.48

Here, there is no indication that you were suspended or terminated based on the contents of the evaluations or review. Because this first element has not been met, these records should be withheld from release under the FOIA.

5. Commendation letters made by or at the behest of the employer. This Office has consistently
   opined that employee-evaluation and job-performance records include written commendations made by or at the behest of an employer.49 Thus, the letters of “appreciation” and “commendation” directly from supervisors praising you for specific conduct while on duty are best classified as employee-evaluation or job-performance records. Such commendation letters cannot be released unless all the following elements have been met: suspension or termination; administrative finality; relevance; and compelling public interest. Because such letters do not entail your suspension or termination, the first two elements are not met, and such letters should be withheld.

6. Unsolicited commendation letters made by a third party. Unsolicited commendation letters
   from the public or other law enforcement agencies are not employee-evaluation or job- performance records because they are not created by or at the behest of the employer.50 Consequently, this Office has consistently concluded that such letters are personnel records subject to release.51 Thus, the commendation letters from the Jacksonville Police Department, Prosecuting

47
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, at 7–8, 572 S.W.3d 466, 471 (noting that “[o]ur supreme court has approved” the definition of employee- evaluation records developed by the Attorney General’s Office); Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2015-057, 2009-067, 2006- 038, 2003-073, 95-351, and 93-055. 48 A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1).
49
E.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2025-003, 2024-074, 2009-146, 2008-135, 2008-053, 2006-176, 2003-153, 93-105, 92- 231, 89-368, 83-368. 50 Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2025-003.
51
See, e.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2006-225, 2006-176, 2003-153.
Captain Mike Blain
Opinion No. 2026-044
Page 8

Attorney, the North Little Rock Fire Department, the United States Secret Service, the Benton Police Department, the Fort Smith Police Department, the Sherwood Police Department, the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the Arkansas State Police, and Baptist Health Medical Center are personnel records subject to release. This includes the separate letters from the Sheriff to the third parties who commended the employees, dated July 2007 and January 2002.

The handwritten letter from an individual who identifies as a “violent crime victim” is also a personnel record subject to release. But the custodian should review the letter to determine whether the author’s name must be redacted under A.C.A. § 16-90-1104(b). A “victim” includes (1) a victim of a “sex offense”; (2) a minor who has been victimized by conduct that amounts to “an offense against a person who is a minor”; or (3) a victim of any “violent crime.”52

7. Promotion letters. This Office has consistently opined that employee-evaluation and
   job-performance records can include letters related to promotions or demotions when they are created by or at the behest of the employer and evaluate the employee.53 Such records may be released only if all four statutory elements for disclosure are satisfied. Because there is no indication that you have been suspended or terminated, the threshold requirement for release has not been met, and the records should be withheld.

8. Suspension letters. A suspension letter may qualify as a personnel record or as an employee-
   evaluation or job-performance record depending on the letter’s contents. This Office has consistently opined that a suspension letter qualifies as a personnel record when the letter does not specify the grounds for suspension.54 On the other hand, this Office has consistently opined that a suspension letter qualifies as an employee-evaluation and job-performance record when that letter does specify the grounds for the suspension.55 Each “Letter of Suspension” contains the specific reasons for the suspension. Thus, they are employee-evaluation or job-performance records.

Because the January 2017, April 2013, and February 10, 2010 “Personnel Appointment or Status Change” forms concerning suspension contain the specific reasons for that suspension, they are also “employee-evaluation or job-performance records.”

These employee-evaluation or job-performance records are subject to release only if they meet each of the following elements: suspension or termination; administrative finality; relevance; and

52
A.C.A. § 16-90-1101(9); Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2009-173.
53
E.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2009-146, 2008-135, 2006-176, 2003-153, 93-105, 92-231, 91-324, 83-368.
54
E.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2023-081, 2023-077, 2023-069, 2015-053.
55
E.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2001-276 (opining that a letter of suspension was an “employee evaluation/job performance record” when the letter “detai[ls] the incidents that gave rise to the discipline”); 2001-244 (opining that “any document reflecting the fact of disciplinary charges brought against [the employee], regardless of when the document was created, qualifies as a ‘job performance record’”); 1998-075 (analyzing a list containing law- enforcement officer disciplinary action in the past 5 years). Captain Mike Blain Opinion No. 2026-044 Page 9

compelling interest. Here, all the elements appear to be met. First, the records indicate that you were suspended. Second, although you have not addressed whether the suspensions are administratively final, the records indicate that the suspensions are incapable of any administrative reversal or modification. That is, the suspensions ended after a certain number of shifts, and nothing submitted indicates that an appeal was timely made or is still pending. Third, the records are relevant because they detail the grounds for the suspensions. Fourth, the public has a compelling interest in the disclosure of the records in question because, as this Office has consistently opined, law-enforcement officers are invested with a significant public trust. So there is usually a compelling public interest in records, such as these, that reflect violations of office policy.56 Therefore, the custodian’s decision to disclose the suspension letters and suspension- related “Personnel Appointment or Status Change” forms is consistent with the FOIA.

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

Sincerely,

TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General

56
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2023-071, 2023-013, 2014-129, 2006-026.