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

Plain-English summary

Captain Mike Blain of the Pulaski County Sheriff's Office asked the AG to review his agency's decision to release his personnel file with redactions. The file included administrative paper, performance evaluations, a supervisor counseling notes review, promotion letters, commendation letters, and three "Letters of Suspension" plus suspension-related "Personnel Appointment or Status Change" forms. The AG split the records by category.

Administrative records are releasable, with redactions. This bucket included memos, salary letters, oaths of office, hire letters, applications, job-qualification forms, reassignment letters, status-change forms, and similar items. Several types of redactions are required: personal contact information, social security numbers, dates of birth, driver's license numbers, financial details, employee personnel ID numbers (PC#, D-numbers, PCN numbers, if they function as identification codes), and the birth certificate's date of birth.

Performance evaluations and the supervisor's counseling notes review must be withheld. They are evaluation records, and there is no suspension or termination based on the evaluations to trigger release.

Supervisor-generated commendation letters and promotion letters must be withheld. Same analysis as the evaluations.

Unsolicited third-party commendation letters are releasable. Letters from Jacksonville PD, the prosecuting attorney, North Little Rock FD, the U.S. Secret Service, Benton PD, Fort Smith PD, Sherwood PD, ATF, the Arkansas State Police, and Baptist Health Medical Center are personnel records, not evaluation records, because they were not created by the employer. The sheriff's separate letters acknowledging those third-party commendations are also releasable. The handwritten letter from someone who identifies as a "violent crime victim" is releasable too, but the custodian should consider whether the author's name must be redacted under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-1104(b).

Suspension letters are releasable in this case. Unlike the situation in the parallel Major Evans opinion (Op. 2026-043), here the four evaluation-record release prongs are met. Each suspension letter states the specific grounds, the suspensions ended after a set number of shifts (administrative finality), the records detail the grounds (relevance), and the public has a compelling interest in records reflecting violations of office policy by law enforcement officers (compelling interest). Same goes for the related "Personnel Appointment or Status Change" forms that document the suspensions.

Records-retention policies are outside FOIA review. Captain Blain argued some records should not be released because the underlying investigative files had been destroyed under an internal retention policy. The AG said that argument is not within the scope of a § 25-19-105(c) review. If the records exist and qualify as public records, FOIA applies regardless of whether the agency was supposed to have kept them.

What this means for you

If you are a law-enforcement agency processing a FOIA request for a deputy or officer's personnel file

Two big takeaways from this opinion. First, redact employee personnel ID numbers, the kind that look like "PC#," "D####," or "PCN," because § 25-19-105(b)(11) protects "personal identification numbers" used for computer security. The opinion ties this to Op. Att'y Gen. 2022-032. Second, suspension letters that state the specific reasons for the suspension are evaluation records that can usually be released when the suspension is final, because the public's interest in law enforcement misconduct records is presumptively compelling.

If the suspension letter does not specify the grounds for the suspension, it is a personnel record and goes through the Young v. Rice balancing instead.

If you are the subject of the records

You can ask the AG to review the custodian's decision under § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i). But the opinion holds that whether records were retained in violation of an internal records-retention policy is outside the scope of that review: if a record exists and qualifies as a public record, FOIA controls its disclosure regardless of the retention policy.

If you are a journalist requesting an Arkansas officer's personnel file

Expect administrative paper and third-party commendations. Expect supervisor commendations, promotions, and routine evaluations to come back redacted or withheld. But also expect to receive suspension letters that document specific misconduct, when the discipline is final. Those records are nearly always disclosable because Arkansas treats public interest in police-misconduct records as a compelling one.

If you are a private sector reference listed on the deputy's job application

Your address and phone number stay unredacted. The protection at § 25-19-105(b)(13) is for personal contact information of public employees only. If you are a public-sector employee giving a reference, your home address and personal phone are redacted, but your name and the substance of your reference may still be releasable.

Common questions

Q: Why are this officer's suspension letters releasable when the related opinion (Op. 2026-043) said most of that officer's records had to be withheld?
A: Because the four-prong evaluation-record test is fact-specific. In the Major Evans matter, there had been no suspension or termination, so prong one failed. Here, Captain Blain was suspended three times, the suspensions ended after a set number of shifts (administratively final), the letters detail the grounds (relevance), and the public has a compelling interest in records of law enforcement officer misconduct. All four prongs are met.

Q: Why is the public interest "compelling" for law enforcement misconduct?
A: Because Arkansas AG opinions have consistently said law enforcement officers are invested with significant public trust, so misconduct records related to office policy violations carry compelling public interest. The opinion cites Ops. Att'y Gen. 2023-071, 2023-013, 2014-129, 2006-026.

Q: What is the difference between a suspension letter that is a personnel record and one that is an evaluation record?
A: Whether the letter states the specific grounds for the suspension. If yes (it documents the conduct and reasoning), it is an evaluation record and the four-prong test applies. If no (it just says "you are suspended for X days"), it is a personnel record and the Young v. Rice balancing applies.

Q: I work in a public agency and my home address is on a status-change form. Can the agency redact it?
A: Yes. Section 25-19-105(b)(13) protects personal contact information of nonelected public employees, including home addresses, personal phones, and personal email addresses.

Q: An internal retention policy says certain records "shall be maintained for five years." Does that limit what FOIA reaches?
A: No. The FOIA is a disclosure statute, not a retention statute. If a record exists and qualifies as a public record, FOIA controls disclosure regardless of whether the agency was supposed to have kept it (citing Op. Att'y Gen. 2025-129).

Q: A handwritten letter is from someone who identifies as a violent crime victim. Can the name be released?
A: Possibly, but the custodian should consider Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-1104(b), which can require redaction of certain victim names. The statutory definition of "victim" at § 16-90-1101(9) includes victims of sex offenses, minor victims of offenses against minors, and victims of any "violent crime."

Background and statutory framework

The Arkansas FOIA's structure is familiar by now: a record must be released if (1) the request goes to a public entity, (2) the document is a public record, and (3) no exemption applies. Public records carry a presumption of release that is rebuttable only if the record does not actually "constitute a record of the performance or lack of performance of official functions" (Pulaski Cnty. v. Ark. Democrat-Gazette, Inc.).

For an employee file, two exemptions matter. Personnel records (§ 25-19-105(b)(12)) are records about an individual that the employer did not create to evaluate the employee. They are open subject to Young v. Rice balancing. Employee evaluation records (§ 25-19-105(c)(1)) are records created by or at the employer's behest to evaluate the employee. They are sealed unless all four prongs (suspension or termination, administrative finality, relevance, compelling public interest) are met.

The Thomas v. Hall and Davis v. Van Buren School District line of authority is the operating framework for sorting documents. Suspension letters land in either bucket based on whether they specify grounds. Performance evaluations and supervisor counseling notes are always evaluation records. Supervisor-generated commendation and promotion letters are also evaluation records. Unsolicited third-party commendations are personnel records.

Required redactions on personnel records (per § 25-19-105(b)(13) and various AG opinions) include personal contact information of public employees, employee personnel identification numbers (PC#, D####, PCN, when used as access codes), dates of birth, social security numbers, driver's license numbers, financial information, and birth certificates' DOB fields.

The opinion is explicit that internal records-retention policies are not part of FOIA's analysis. If a record exists and is a public record, disclosure rules apply.

Citations and references

Statutes:
- Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-1101(9) (victim definition)
- Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-1104(b) (victim name redaction)
- Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-103(15)(A) (public record definition)
- Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(11) (personal identification numbers)
- Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(12) (personnel records exemption)
- Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(13) (personal contact information)
- Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(1) (evaluation records test)

Cases:
- Thomas v. Hall, 2012 Ark. 66, 399 S.W.3d 387 (evaluation record definition)
- Davis v. Van Buren Sch. Dist., 2019 Ark. App. 466, 572 S.W.3d 466 (Court of Appeals adoption)
- Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992) (balancing test)
- Pulaski Cnty. v. Ark. Democrat-Gazette, Inc., 370 Ark. 435, 260 S.W.3d 718 (2007) (public-record presumption)
- Legis. Joint Auditing Comm. v. Woosley, 291 Ark. 89, 722 S.W.2d 581 (1987) (three-part FOIA test)

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. 2026-044
May 15, 2026

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

TIM GRIFFIN
ATTORNEY GENERAL

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; job applications; a signed "Reference Authorization and Reference 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 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 Pulaski County Sheriff's Office, 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. 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.

For purposes of the FOIA, employees' personnel files 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. 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.

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. 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." 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 a thumb on the scale in favor of disclosure, has two steps.

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. 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.

This Office has consistently opined that the following are personnel records subject to disclosure under the FOIA: documents that confirm someone's employment; dates of hire; general education background, including schools attended and degrees received; training and certifications; signed acknowledgments of having received policies and procedures; pre-employment background investigations; general change-of-status records that do not contain reasons for the change; birth certificates in the personnel files of public employees; employee race and gender; employee names; salaries; payroll records; and general resignation letters. 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); employee personnel numbers or identification codes; marital status of public employees; dates of birth of public employees; social security numbers; driver's license numbers; insurance coverage; tax information or withholdings; payroll deductions; names of children, spouses, and ex-spouses; net pay; banking information; and other financial "records that would divulge intimate financial detail."

If a job reference is a nonelected public employee, and that person's personal contact information is "contained in employer records," 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. 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.

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.

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 employer to evaluate you, and they detail your performance or lack of performance on the job. 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.

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. 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. Consequently, this Office has consistently concluded that such letters are personnel records subject to release. Thus, the commendation letters from the Jacksonville Police Department, Prosecuting 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."

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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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