Can a police department release all of a fired officer's records without redacting anything under FOIA?

Plain-English summary

Brittany Byrd, who was terminated from the Conway Police Department in June 2025 and appealed, learned that the department had received a broad FOIA request for her employment, disciplinary, and termination records and that the custodian did not appear to intend to withhold or redact anything. She asked the Attorney General whether releasing everything, with no redactions, would be consistent with the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act. Attorney General Tim Griffin said it would not.

A wholesale release of an employee's personnel and evaluation records without any redactions skips the analysis the FOIA requires. The custodian must first sort each record into the right category (a "personnel record" or an "employee-evaluation or job-performance record"), then apply the test that goes with that category, and then redact anything the law protects (such as Social Security numbers and other personal identifiers) before releasing it. The AG had already reviewed Byrd's records in three earlier opinions (2025-093, 2025-089, and 2025-066) and pointed the custodian back to that analysis rather than repeating it. He did flag one change: Byrd's appeal to the Conway Civil Service Commission had concluded, which counts as a "final administrative resolution" of her termination. That satisfies the first two parts of the four-part test for evaluation records (discipline and finality), so some of her evaluation records may now be releasable, but only if the custodian confirms, record by record, that the remaining parts (relevance and a compelling public interest) are also met.

What this means for you

Records custodians

Based on this opinion, "release everything as-is" is not a lawful FOIA response for an employee file. The custodian must classify each record, apply the personnel-record or evaluation-record test, and redact protected identifiers before disclosure. When a prior AG opinion already analyzed the same records, the custodian can follow that analysis, updated for any change like a now-final termination.

Public employees and law enforcement officers

For an employee whose records are requested, this opinion confirms the custodian cannot simply hand over the entire file. It also shows that once a termination appeal is final, evaluation records that were previously closed can become releasable if the public-interest test is met, so finality can change what comes out.

FOIA requesters and journalists

A request for a fired officer's full file will not necessarily yield an unredacted document dump. The custodian has to screen and redact first, and evaluation records only open up when the discipline is final and the compelling-public-interest test is satisfied.

Common questions

Q: Why is releasing everything without redactions a FOIA problem?
A: Because the FOIA requires the custodian to classify each record and apply the correct disclosure test, and to redact protected information such as Social Security numbers. Releasing personnel and evaluation records with no redactions skips those required steps.

Q: Did the end of Byrd's civil-service appeal change anything?
A: Yes. The AG explained that the conclusion of her Conway Civil Service Commission appeal is a "final administrative resolution" of the termination, which satisfies the discipline and finality parts of the four-part test for evaluation records. Some evaluation records may now be releasable if relevance and a compelling public interest are also present.

Q: Does the AG's office re-review the same records every time?
A: Not necessarily. Here the AG referred the custodian to his earlier opinions (2025-093, 2025-089, and 2025-066), which already analyzed which of Byrd's records should be released or withheld, rather than repeating that work.

Q: What has to be redacted before release?
A: At a minimum, the FOIA requires redaction of protected personal identifiers such as Social Security numbers. The custodian also has to apply the privacy balancing test to personnel records and the four-part test to evaluation records to decide what else stays out.

Background and statutory framework

Arkansas's FOIA lets the subject, requester, or custodian of certain employee-related records ask the Attorney General to review a custodian's release decision (A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i)). Records held by a public entity are presumed public (A.C.A. § 25-19-103(15)(A); Pulaski Cnty. v. Ark. Democrat-Gazette, Inc., 370 Ark. 435, 260 S.W.3d 718 (2007)), and the general disclosure test comes from Harrill & Sutter, PLLC v. Farrar, 2012 Ark. 180, 402 S.W.3d 511.

Employee files divide into personnel records (A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12)), judged under the privacy balancing test of Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992), and Stilley v. McBride, 332 Ark. 306, 965 S.W.2d 125 (1998), and employee-evaluation or job-performance records (A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1)), judged under the four-part test recognized in Thomas v. Hall, 2012 Ark. 66, 399 S.W.3d 387, and Davis v. Van Buren Sch. Dist., 2019 Ark. App. 466, 572 S.W.3d 466. "Final administrative resolution" of the underlying discipline is the element that changed for Byrd once her civil-service appeal ended.

Citations and references

Statutes:
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (subject/requester/custodian may seek an AG opinion)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1) (employee-evaluation/job-performance records; four-part test)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12) (personnel records; unwarranted-privacy-invasion exemption)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(13) (redaction of specific personal identifiers)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-103(15)(A) (definition of public record)

Cases:
- Harrill & Sutter, PLLC v. Farrar, 2012 Ark. 180, 402 S.W.3d 511, general FOIA disclosure test
- Pulaski Cnty. v. Ark. Democrat-Gazette, Inc., 370 Ark. 435, 260 S.W.3d 718 (2007), rebuttable public-record presumption
- Thomas v. Hall, 2012 Ark. 66, 399 S.W.3d 387, definition of evaluation records
- Davis v. Van Buren Sch. Dist., 2019 Ark. App. 466, 572 S.W.3d 466, court approval of the evaluation-record test
- Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992), privacy balancing test
- Stilley v. McBride, 332 Ark. 306, 965 S.W.2d 125 (1998), personal-privacy standard

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. 2026-048
May 26, 2026
Brittany Byrd
Via email only: [email protected]
Dear Ms. Byrd:
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 your correspondence, you were terminated from the Conway Police Department on
June 30, 2025. You appealed your termination to the Conway Civil Service Commission, which
resulted in a tie vote. You then appealed the matter to circuit court, where the case is now pending.
You further state that the Conway Police Department received a broad FOIA request seeking
numerous records pertaining to you. The requested records include materials related to your
employment history, disciplinary and personnel matters, a shooting incident, your termination and
subsequent appeal, and any efforts to decertify you. You state that the custodian “did not indicate
that they intend to withhold or redact any portion of this request from release.” You have requested
that I review the custodian’s decision to determine whether it is consistent with the FOIA.
RESPONSE
To the extent the custodian intends to release all of your personnel and evaluation records without
any redactions, that decision is inconsistent with the FOIA. The custodian must review the
responsive records, properly classify them, apply the appropriate tests for disclosure, and make
any required redactions before releasing the records.
Although I have not reviewed the records the custodian intends to release in response to this FOIA
request, I previously addressed the release of your records in Attorney General Opinions 2025-
093, 2025-089, and 2025-066. In Opinion 2025-089, I reviewed the records the custodian intended
to release, opined on which records should be released or withheld, and identified information
requiring redaction. I will not repeat that full analysis here but instead refer the custodian to that
opinion.
TIM GRIFFIN
ATTORNEY GENERAL

Brittany Byrd
Opinion No. 2026-048
Page 2
One relevant circumstance, however, has changed since that opinion was issued: your appeal to
the Conway Civil Service Commission has concluded. As explained more fully below, this
constitutes a “final administrative resolution” of your termination proceeding. Accordingly, the
first two elements for release of employee-evaluation records—termination (or suspension) and
finality—have now been satisfied. As a result, some of your evaluation records may now be subject
to release if the remaining two elements—relevance and a compelling public interest—are also
met. But the custodian must examine each employee-evaluation record individually to determine
whether those remaining elements are satisfied.
DISCUSSION
1. General rules. A document must be disclosed in response to a FOIA request if (1) the request
was directed to an entity subject to the FOIA, (2) the requested document is a public record, and
(3) no exceptions allow the document to be withheld.1
The first two elements appear to be met. The request was made to the Conway Police Department,
which is a public entity subject to the FOIA. And the records at issue are presumed to be public
records,2
although that presumption is rebuttable.3 Given that I have no information to suggest that
the presumption can be rebutted here, I will focus on whether any exemptions prevent the
documents’ disclosure.
For purposes of the FOIA, employees’ personnel files4
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. Thus, the custodian
must first decide whether a record meets the definition of either a “personnel record” or an
1 Harrill & Sutter, PLLC v. Farrar, 2012 Ark. 180, at 8, 402 S.W.3d 511, 515.
2 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).
3 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)).
4
“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).

Brittany Byrd
Opinion No. 2026-048
Page 3
“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. 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.5 A personnel record
is open to public inspection except “to the extent that disclosure would constitute a clearly
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”6 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.7 The balancing test,
which takes place “with the scale tipped in favor of public access,” has two steps.8 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.9
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.10
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.11 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.12
Even if a document, when considered as a whole, meets the test for disclosure, it may contain
pieces of information that must be redacted.
13 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.14
5 See, e.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2015-072, 99-147.
6 A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12).
7 308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992).
8 Watkins et al., supra note 4, at 208.
9 Young, 308 Ark. at 598, 826 S.W.2d at 255.
10 Id.
11 Stilley v. McBride, 332 Ark. 306, 313, 965 S.W.2d 125, 128 (1998).
12 E.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2016-055, 2001-112, 2001-028, 94-198; Watkins et al., supra note 4, at 207.
13 A.C.A. § 25-19-105(f).
14 A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(13).

Brittany Byrd
Opinion No. 2026-048
Page 4
3. Employee-evaluation records. The second relevant exception is for “employee evaluation or
job performance records,” which 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.15 This exception includes records generated while investigating allegations of employee
misconduct that detail incidents that gave rise to an allegation of misconduct.16
If a document qualifies as an employee-evaluation record, the document cannot be released unless
all the following elements have been met:
1. The employee was suspended or terminated (i.e., level of discipline);
2. There has been a final administrative resolution of the suspension or termination
proceeding (i.e., finality);
3. The records in question formed a basis for the decision made in that proceeding to
suspend or terminate the employee (i.e., relevance); and
4. The public has a compelling interest in the disclosure of the records in question (i.e.,
compelling interest).17
As for the final prong, the FOIA never defines the key phrase “compelling public interest.” But
the leading commentators on the FOIA have offered the following guidelines:
[I]t seems that the following factors should be considered in determining whether
a compelling public interest is present: (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.18
15 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, 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, 93-055.
16 E.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2015-057 (collecting citations).
17 A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1); e.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2008-065.
18 Watkins et al., supra note 4, at 238–39.

Brittany Byrd
Opinion No. 2026-048
Page 5
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,19 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.20 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.21
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.22 When a portion of a record is
mixed, the custodian should apply the applicable tests for disclosure to that portion of the record.
Furthermore, A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(A) requires that any public employee whose records are
sought under the FOIA must be notified of that request. Thus, if an entire record is requested, such
that portions pertaining to other employees cannot be excised, those employees will need to be
notified of the FOIA request as well.
5. Application. You state that the custodian “did not indicate that they intend to withhold or redact
any portion of this request from release.” To the extent the custodian intends to release all
responsive records without first classifying them, analyzing them under the appropriate tests, and
making the necessary redactions, that decision would be inconsistent with the FOIA.
Some of the requested materials—such as your dates of employment, positions held, job
descriptions, training records and certifications, and salary history—constitute personnel records
that are generally subject to disclosure under the FOIA.
23 But even when such records are
disclosable, they may contain discrete pieces of information that must be redacted before release.
This includes, for example, your personal contact information;
24 employee personnel number;25
19 Id. at 237 (noting that “[a]s a practical matter, such an interest is more likely to be present when a high-level
employee is involved than when the [records] of ‘rank-and-file’ workers are at issue”).
20 E.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2024-045, 2023-012, 2015-057, 2011-051.
21 E.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 96-168.
22 See Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2020-037 (and opinions cited therein).
23 See, e.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2024-067, 2018-122, 2011-156, 2002-252, 2002-159, 96-256, 95-012.
24 A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(13).
25 Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2022-032, 2014-094, 2007-070.

Brittany Byrd
Opinion No. 2026-048
Page 6
marital status;26 date of birth;27 Social Security number;28 driver’s license number;29 banking
information;30 and medical information.31 Accordingly, the custodian must review these records
and redact any information that is exempt from disclosure before the records can be released.
Other requested materials, including your performance evaluations and records generated as part
of an internal investigation, likely qualify as employee-evaluation records. To fall within this
category, these records must have been created by or at the behest of the employer to evaluate
you.32
As explained above, employee-evaluation records are subject to a more stringent four-part test.
The first two prongs of that test are now satisfied. You were terminated from your position, and
your appeal to the Conway Civil Service Commission has concluded. The Commission’s tie vote,
which left the termination in place, constitutes a “final administrative resolution” for purposes of
A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1). The term “final administrative resolution” refers to the final decisionmaking step taken by the employing entity.33 As my predecessors have consistently concluded, the
fact that an employee has sought or may seek recourse through the courts to reverse that decision
does not make the “administrative” resolution any less final.34
However, satisfying the first two elements does not mean that all employee-evaluation records are
automatically subject to release. The custodian must still determine whether each record meets the
remaining two elements:
• Relevance: Only those records that formed a basis for the decision to terminate your
employment may be subject to release. Records that were created by or at the behest of the
employer to evaluate you but that were not relevant to your termination (such as prior
performance review evaluations unrelated to your termination) do not satisfy this
requirement and must be withheld.
26 Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2001-080.
27 Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2007-064.
28 Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2006-035, 2003-153.
29 Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2007-025.
30 Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2005-194.
31 E.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2000-232, 2000-226, 99-110, 99-042, 98-261, 98-202, 96-203, 91-374, 87-070.
32 By contrast, materials that may reflect on your performance but were not created by or at the employer’s behest—
such as unsolicited complaints or allegations—are properly classified as personnel records rather than employeeevaluation records. E.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2016-014, 2015-053, 2012-074, 2010-109, 2001-028, 2000-058.
33 Watkins et al., supra note 4, at 232.
34 See Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2020-029, 2008-167, 2002-326, 95-204.

Brittany Byrd
Opinion No. 2026-048
Page 7
• Compelling public interest: Even if a record is relevant, it may be released only if there
is a compelling public interest in its disclosure. In making this determination, the custodian
should consider the factors discussed above (the nature and seriousness of the infraction,
the existence of a public controversy, and your position within the agency), as well as your
role as a law enforcement officer. 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 that reflect violations of departmental policy by such officers.
35
Given that the records involve your actions as a police officer and involve a shooting
incident and an apparent public controversy, it is likely that at least some records will
implicate a compelling public interest. Nevertheless, the custodian must review each record
individually to determine whether it meets this standard.
6. Conclusion. In sum, while some of the responsive records may now be subject to release in
light of the final administrative resolution of your termination, a decision to release all responsive
records without any redactions would be inconsistent with the FOIA. The custodian must classify
the records, apply the proper tests for release, and make any necessary redactions before the
records may be disclosed.
Deputy Attorney General Kelly Summerside prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.
Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General
35 Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2023-013, 2014-129, 2009-146, 2006-158.