Can the public get a fired police officer's personnel file, internal affairs records, and termination letters under the Arkansas FOIA?

Plain-English summary

Someone filed an Arkansas FOIA request with the Marion Police Department for the "complete personnel file," disciplinary records, internal affairs investigations, and termination documents of Jonathan Lewis, a former officer. As the subject of the records, Lewis asked the Attorney General to review whether the custodian's plan to release them (with redactions) followed the FOIA. Attorney General Tim Griffin worked through the file category by category.

The bottom line: the release is partially consistent with the FOIA, but the custodian has work to do. The big takeaways:

• Routine "administrative" personnel records (applications, resume, training certificates, oaths, equipment records, and similar) are releasable as personnel records, with specific private data redacted.
• The internal affairs investigation records and the two termination letters are employee-evaluation records, but they are releasable here because the termination is final and, since law enforcement officers hold significant public trust, there is usually a compelling public interest in records reflecting policy violations.
• Some records must be withheld entirely: the workers' compensation records (they contain medical information exempt under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(2)), a routine "Week 1 Evaluation" (an evaluation record with no tie to the termination), and commendation and promotion letters (evaluation records not connected to any discipline).
• The custodian's redactions were incomplete: several were done with a marker but the underlying Social Security numbers and contact information were still readable, and some private fields (date of birth, family members' names, tax-withholding forms) were not redacted at all. The FOIA requires exempt information to be fully obscured.

What this means for you

Police officers and other public employees

The opinion is a detailed guide to what comes out of a public-employee file and what stays in. Based on this opinion, ordinary personnel records (employment confirmation, hire dates, education, training, signed policy acknowledgments) are public, while medical/workers' compensation records are withheld, and internal affairs and termination records become disclosable once discipline is final. The opinion also stresses that the office's view of the compelling public interest is strong for law enforcement, so an officer should not expect internal affairs findings tied to a final termination to stay private.

Records custodians

The opinion is close to a checklist. Classify each document as a personnel record or an employee-evaluation record, then apply the right test. Redact the enumerated private items (Social Security number, date of birth, personal contact info, marital status, family names, tax and payroll data) and, critically, make sure redactions fully hide the text rather than just marking it. Withhold workers' compensation and other medical records. Distinguish an administrative, paid suspension pending investigation (a releasable personnel record) from disciplinary evaluation records. Note also that a private-sector job reference's contact details are not exempt, while a public-employee reference's are.

Journalists and police-accountability advocates

The opinion reinforces that a fired officer's internal affairs file and termination letters are generally obtainable once the discipline is administratively final, because of the public trust placed in law enforcement. It also flags that an unsolicited complaint from a coworker is a releasable personnel record even if later found unsubstantiated, and that a subsequent investigation does not convert it into a protected evaluation record.

Common questions

Q: Are a police officer's personnel records public in Arkansas?
A: Generally yes. The opinion treats routine administrative records as releasable personnel records, subject to redacting private identifiers.

Q: Can the public see internal affairs investigations and termination letters?
A: Yes, once the four-part evaluation-records test is met (suspension or termination, administrative finality, relevance, compelling public interest). The opinion found those satisfied here, noting the strong public interest in law enforcement misconduct records.

Q: What must be withheld entirely?
A: The opinion says the workers' compensation records (medical information exempt under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(2)), a routine "Week 1 Evaluation," and commendation and promotion letters all must be withheld.

Q: Is a paid suspension pending an investigation confidential?
A: No. The opinion classifies an administrative, paid "suspension pending internal investigation" letter as a releasable personnel record, even though it recites the allegations, because it is administrative rather than disciplinary.

Q: What about job references and complaints from coworkers?
A: A private-sector reference's contact information is not exempt (a public-employee reference's is redacted). An unsolicited coworker complaint is a releasable personnel record even if unsubstantiated.

Background and statutory framework

Under the Arkansas FOIA, a record is disclosed if the request went to a covered entity, the record is a public record, and no exemption applies (Legis. Joint Auditing Comm. v. Woosley, 291 Ark. 89, 722 S.W.2d 581 (1987)). Government records are presumed public (A.C.A. § 25-19-103(15)(A)), a presumption that is rebuttable (Pulaski Cnty. v. Ark. Democrat-Gazette, Inc., 370 Ark. 435, 260 S.W.3d 718 (2007)).

Personnel records are open except where disclosure would be a "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy," judged by the two-step balancing test of Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992). Employee-evaluation or job-performance records, those created by or at the employer's behest to evaluate the employee (Thomas v. Hall, 2012 Ark. 66, 399 S.W.3d 387; Davis v. Van Buren Sch. Dist., 2019 Ark. App. 466, 572 S.W.3d 466), are released only when the four-part test in A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1) is met. Workers' compensation records are withheld under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(2) because they contain medical information, and redactions must fully obscure exempt data under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(f).

Citations and references

Statutes:
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105 (FOIA exemptions; personnel and evaluation records; medical records; redaction)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-103(15)(A) (definition of public record)

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)
- Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992)
- Thomas v. Hall, 2012 Ark. 66, 399 S.W.3d 387
- Davis v. Van Buren Sch. Dist., 2019 Ark. App. 466, 572 S.W.3d 466

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. 2026-064
June 30, 2026
Mr. Jonathan Lewis
Via email only: [email protected]
Dear Mr. Lewis:
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.
Based on information submitted for my review, someone made a FOIA request to the Marion
Police Department’s custodian for your “complete personnel file”; “[a]ll disciplinary records,
internal affairs investigations, and termination documents”; a “Letter of Memorandum dated
February 1, 2025”; and a “Letter of Termination dated January 6, 2026.” 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 have provided redacted copies of the following employee records for my review:
1
• Administrative records. These include a birth certificate; multiple uniform and equipment
invoices, including one for alterations;
2 multiple signed office policy memoranda
concerning “Bullet proof vests,” “Reference Concerns of the Marion Police Department,”
“Rotation of Calls,” “Patrol Vehicle Policy,” “EMS Related Calls,” “Time Sheets,” “Patrol
Rotation Vehicles,” “Annual Firearms Qualifications,” “Body Worn Video Recording,”
“Passdown/Shift Change Responsibilities,” and phones in school zones; your employment
applications; your resume with references; a copy of your driver’s license; your signed oath
of office; Marion Police Department identification cards; a signed 2013 W-4; a State of
Arkansas “Employee’s Withholding Exemption Certificate”; a “Family Information” page;
1
I have been provided only redacted copies of records to review.
2 The writing contained in an “Ann Chapman’s Outdoor Warehouse” invoice dated October 4, 2017, is too faint to
read the specifics.
TIM GRIFFIN
ATTORNEY GENERAL

Mr. Jonathan Lewis
Opinion No. 2026-064
Page 2
your “New Hires Checklist”; your certificates of appointment to “Police Officer-Part Time
I,” Patrolman, and Sergeant; a signed “Law Enforcement Code of Ethics”; signed “Letters
of Acknowledgment”; Commission on Law Enforcement Standards and Training (CLEST)
“Personal History Statement” forms; your CLEST “Initial Employment Reports”; a letter
from the Office of Law Enforcement Standards to the Police Chief concerning your “Initial
Employment Report” form; an Axon invoice with your name on it and signed Axon terms
and conditions; multiple signed “Permission to carry a personal firearm” letters and a
signed “Request to carry a personal Firearm”; a completed emergency contact form; signed
letters issuing equipment and multiple equipment lists; signed “Personal Inquiry Waivers”;
signed “Authority to Release Information” forms; a copy of a ballistic panel tag with your
name written next to it; an April 15, 2015 letter concerning a “PBT” (portable breath test)
serial number; a “Payroll Change Notice” indicating a change from part-time to full-time;
your 2016 letter to a supervisor concerning “Patrol Rifle and Officer Safety”; a signed
“Designation of Terminal Agency Coordinator”; signed health, vision, and dental plan
forms; your letter to a supervisor concerning “Assigned patrol units”; your letters
concerning “Firearms Training” for recruits; a letter from a supervisor to Mira Frosolona
labeled “Application Letter” for a class; your letter noting that you signed up for the “CJI
Criminal Interdiction class”; your letter to the Chief labeled “Training Officer”; a
completed “Lock-out kit” form with your officer number; a letter requesting crime-scene
training for officers and a letter from your supervisor denying that request because of
staffing; handwritten notes concerning a portable breath test serial number with your
officer number; your letter to a supervisor concerning the “[d]isposal of diseased animals”;
your letter to the Chief concerning a “CID Position”; records concerning a “PoliceOne”
training, including invoices and a copy of a check to pay for the training; a Black River
Technical College class list with your name written at the top; records concerning a “Glock
Professional” training class, including a receipt and a confirmation of attendance; your
letter to the Chief concerning your desire to take the Sergeant exam for promotion; two
copies of an April 2018 letter from the Chief concerning your interests in a CID position;
a letter from the Chief concerning your request for your “captain’s badge for a shadow
box”; and multiple records concerning a vehicle accident—such as insurance claim
records, crash reports, a blood alcohol testing report form, related emails, and your letter
concerning the accident.
• Worker’s compensation records. These include a “Municipal League Workers’
Compensation Trust” claim printout and a Municipal League Workers’ Compensation
Trust “Municipal Employee’s Report of Accident.”
• Termination letters. These include a January 6, 2026 letter concerning “Notice of
Termination of Employment” and a January 6, 2026 “Letter of Termination.”
• Review-of-termination letter. This is a letter from the Mayor to you regarding the review
of your termination.

Mr. Jonathan Lewis
Opinion No. 2026-064
Page 3
• Administrative-suspension letter. This is a November 11, 2025 “Administrative
Suspension Pending Internal Investigation” letter.
• Duty reassignment letter. This is an October 6, 2025 letter from the Chief reassigning
you to a new position.
• Performance evaluation. This is a “Week 1 Evaluation (Aug. 31-Sept. 4, 2016)” letter.
• Internal investigation records. These include an “Internal Affairs Complaint
Investigation Report”; witness statements and memoranda; a letter from the Chief to the
Mayor concerning the investigation; a February 1, 2025 memorandum from the Chief
outlining the initial investigation into an internal complaint; a Garrity notice; a “Notice of
Internal Investigation”; and a letter to the Mayor from another officer supplementing the
investigative report.
• Commendations and promotions. These include a February 2019 letter from the Chief
concerning your promotion and the promotion of four other officers; two copies of a
Certificate of Accommodation; an August 2021 “Tested Promotions” letter from the Chief;
and a letter from the Assistant Chief to the Chief recommending you for official
commendation.
• Unsolicited complaint. This is a complaint letter to the Chief from another employee that
initiated the internal affairs complaint investigation.
RESPONSE
For the reasons set forth in the opinion, the custodian’s decision to release the records as redacted
is partially consistent with the FOIA. But much of the redacted information remains visible through
the redactions. The custodian must review the records to ensure that exempt information is
properly redacted so that it cannot be read. The worker’s compensation records, the “Week 1
Evaluation,” and the commendation and promotion records must be withheld from release.
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.3 Second, the requested document must constitute a public record.4 Third, the document
must not be subject to an exemption.5
3 Legis. Joint Auditing Comm. v. Woosley, 291 Ark. 89, 91, 722 S.W.2d 581, 582 (1987).
4
Id.
5
Id.

Mr. Jonathan Lewis
Opinion No. 2026-064
Page 4
The first two elements appear to be met here. The request was made to the Marion Police
Department, which is a public entity subject to the FOIA. And the records at issue appear to be
public records.6 Because these records are held by a public entity, they are presumed to be public
records,7
although that presumption is rebuttable.8 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.
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.
Some of the records submitted for my review are neither personnel records nor evaluations:
• an incomplete “Confirmation of Psychological Evaluation” form that does not reference
you;
• a screenshot of a training course that does not reference you;
• fax coversheets that do not reference you; and
• the vehicle records that do not reference you or other employees and are specific to the
purchase of the vehicle, proof of insurance, certificate of origin, vehicle registration,
license plate, invoices, the odometer disclosure form, “Wholesale Breakdown,” the
certificate of title, and valuations.
6 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).
7
Id.
8 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)).
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).

Mr. Jonathan Lewis
Opinion No. 2026-064
Page 5
Thus, such records fall outside the scope of my review under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i), and
I lack the authority to opine on whether the custodian’s decisions concerning those records are
consistent with the FOIA.
While the email concerning the evaluation and estimate of a vehicle between the Chief and a third
party, which does not reference you, the email between two employees concerning an “F1
correction,” which does not reference you, and the August 15, 2016 notes about an investigation
by another officer into non-employee conduct, which also do not reference you, may be personnel
records or employee-evaluation or job-performance records of the employees mentioned, they are
not your employment records.
Additionally, the custodian should review the First Security Bank verification request records (the
form and related fax sheets) to determine whether those records are “public records”—that is,
whether they “constitute a record of the performance or lack of performance of official
functions.”10 This determination falls outside the scope of my review under A.C.A.
§ 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i).
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.11 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.12 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.”13 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.14
10 A.C.A. § 25-19-103(15)(A).
11 See Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2020-037.
12 See, e.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2015-072, 1999-147; Watkins et al., supra note 9, at 202.
13 A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12).
14 308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992).

Mr. Jonathan Lewis
Opinion No. 2026-064
Page 6
The balancing test, which takes place with a thumb on the scale in favor of disclosure, has two
steps.15
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.16 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.17
This Office has consistently opined that the following are personnel records subject to disclosure
under the FOIA: documents that confirm someone’s employment;18 dates of hire;19 general
education background, including schools attended and degrees received;20 training and
certifications;21 signed acknowledgments of having received policies and procedures;22
pre-employment background investigations;23 general change-of-status records that do not contain
reasons for the change;24 birth certificates in the personnel files of public employees;25 employee
race and gender;26 employee names;27 salaries;28 payroll records;29 and general resignation
15 Watkins et al., supra note 9, at 208.
16 Young, 308 Ark. at 598, 826 S.W.2d at 255.
17 Id.
18 Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 97-063.
19 Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2016-103, 95-256.
20 Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2016-124, 2015-034, 2008-082, 2006-176.
21 Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2002-252 (training), 2006-165 (educational background), 96-256 (certifications).
22 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).
23 Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 95-256.
24 Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2014-116, 99-040.
25 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).
26 Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2024-073, 2019-008, 2009-156, 2005-100, 99-305, 91-351.
27 Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2009-156.
28 Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2002-159.
29 Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2008-129, 94-198.

Mr. Jonathan Lewis
Opinion No. 2026-064
Page 7
letters.30 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);31 employee
personnel numbers or identification codes;32 marital status of public employees;33 dates of birth of
public employees;34 social security numbers;35 driver’s license numbers;36 insurance coverage;37
tax information or withholdings;38 payroll deductions;39 names of children, spouses, and
ex-spouses;40 net pay;41 banking information;42 and other financial “records that would divulge
intimate financial detail.”43
If a job reference is a nonelected public employee, and that person’s personal contact information
is “contained in employer records,”44 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.45 Thus, to the extent the
30 Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2020-056, 2012-144, 2012-019, 2006-216, 2002-320, 99-119, 96-088, 95-162.
31 A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(13).
32 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).
33 Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2001-080.
34 Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2007-064.
35 Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2006-035, 2003-153.
36 Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2007-025.
37 Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2004-167.
38 Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2005-194, 2003-385.
39 Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 98-126.
40 Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2018-084, 2006-165, 2002-237.
41 E.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2018-064, 2018-015, 2002-043, 98-126.
42 Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2005-194.
43 Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2005-194, 98-126, 95-242, 95-110, 94-235, 91-093, 87-422.
44 See A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(13).
45 See Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2025-064, 2025-059, 2025-023, 2016-129, 2015-008, 2010-070, 2005-131, 2001-080.

Mr. Jonathan Lewis
Opinion No. 2026-064
Page 8
names, addresses, and phone numbers for listed job references belong to individuals employed in
the private sector, such information should not be redacted.
The following information is not currently redacted from the records but should be:
• your date of birth on the copy of your driver’s license;
• payroll deductions contained in the health insurance forms for Aetna, Humana, and
Cigna;
46
• the marital-status responses in section 11 of the “Personal History Statement”;
• the names of family members on the “Family Information” document; 47
• your father’s name on one copy of your “Personal History Statement”;
• the names of family members on another copy of your “Personal History Statement”; and
• the W-4 and State tax-withholding forms, which should be withheld from release.48
On the birth certificate, if the filing date is the same as your date of birth, that date must also be
redacted.
49
The custodian has redacted employee names from some of the records. For example, in a March
18, 2019 letter concerning a check for taser recertification, the name of an employee is redacted,
while that same name appears unredacted on invoices and on the copy of the check. But the reasons
for such redactions are not clear. Because I do not have access to all the facts concerning the
records, some privacy interest may exist that is not readily apparent, but the custodian will need to
review and make that determination.50 Additionally, some records redact an employee name while
leaving that same information unredacted in other records. To the extent that the employee names
should be redacted, the custodian should ensure that the redactions are applied consistently.
Several redactions appear to have been completed with a marker, but the underlying text remains
visible in many instances. In some records, the social security number and personal contact
information of the employee can still be read through the redactions. The custodian will need to
review and ensure that exemption information is fully redacted and not visible.
46 E.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2018-064, 98-126.
47 E.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2001-080, 98-152.
48 E.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2017-085, 2005-194.
49 See Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2025-049, 2011-081, 2008-053.
50 See Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2025-132.

Mr. Jonathan Lewis
Opinion No. 2026-064
Page 9
4. Worker’s compensation records. Generally, worker’s compensation records are personnel
records.51 But under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(2), such records are exempt from release because they
include specific medical information about the employee that concerns the treatment or diagnosis
of a medical condition.52 Thus, these records must be withheld from release.
5. Termination letters. Both January 6, 2026 letters are best classified as employee-evaluation or
job-performance records because each was created by or at the behest of the employer and includes
the grounds for the termination.53 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.54
The custodian must review the surrounding facts and determine whether all four elements are met.
The information provided indicates that all the elements are met. First, you were terminated.
Second, although you have not noted whether the termination was administratively final, the record
itself indicates that the termination was incapable of any administrative reversal or modification.
The Mayor upheld the termination—which constitutes a “final administrative resolution” under
the FOIA.55 Third, the records are relevant to the termination because they detail grounds for the
termination. Fourth, the public has a compelling interest in the release of the records in question
because, as this Office has consistently opined, law-enforcement officers are invested with
significant public trust, so there is usually a compelling public interest in records, such as these,
that reflect violations of office policy.56 Thus, the custodian’s decision to release these records is
consistent with the FOIA.
6. Review-of-termination letter. Because the January 19, 2026 letter from the Mayor simply
references “termination” without providing the grounds for the termination, it is best classified as
51 See Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 97-070.
52 E.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2025-105, 2000-232, 99-042, 98-202, 96-203, 91-374, 87-070.
53 Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2026-023, 2023-041, 2022-014, 2001-276.
54 A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1).
55 See Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2026-048.
56 Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2023-071, 2023-013, 2014-129, 2006-026.

Mr. Jonathan Lewis
Opinion No. 2026-064
Page 10
a personnel record subject to release. The custodian’s decision to release this letter is consistent
with the FOIA.
7. Administrative-suspension letter. The November 11, 2025 “Administrative Suspension
Pending Internal Investigation” letter notifies you about an internal investigation into alleged
policy violations. And the suspension is with pay during the investigation. This is an administrative
and non-disciplinary act: the administrative suspension appears to be triggered by an
administrative investigation into alleged conduct—based on policy and routine—and not because
the employer found that your conduct was “below expectations.”57
Because the letter is “administrative in nature” and “not evaluative and disciplinary ... the letter as
a whole is a personnel record” and should be released, “even though it includes the allegations that
caused” the administrative leave.58 Therefore, the custodian’s decision to release this letter is
consistent with the FOIA.
8. Duty reassignment letter. The Chief’s October 6, 2025 letter reassigning you to a new job does
not provide the reason for the reassignment. Thus, this record is a personnel record subject to
release, and the custodian’s decision to release this letter is consistent with the FOIA.
9. Performance evaluation. The “Week 1 Evaluation (Aug. 31-Sept. 4, 2016)” is an
employee-evaluation or job-performance record because it was created by or at the behest of your
employer to evaluate you, and it details your performance or lack of performance on the job.59
This record must be released if it meets each element for release: suspension; administrative
finality; relevance; and compelling interest.
Here, there is no indication that you were suspended or terminated based on the contents of this
record. Because this first element has not been met, this performance evaluation should be
withheld from release under the FOIA.
10. Internal investigation records. As this Office has consistently concluded, records in an
internal affairs file that have been generated at the behest of the employer while investigating a
complaint against an employee (evaluating the employee and detailing performance or lack of
performance on the job) constitute employee-evaluation or job-performance records.60 Thus, these
records are employee-evaluation or job-performance records. These employee-evaluation or
job-performance records cannot be released unless the four previously discussed elements for
57 Ark. Att'y Gen. Ops. 2025-088,2024-063, 2023-096, 2021-111, 2014-110.
58 Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2025-088, 2021-111.
59 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.
60 Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2007-311.

Mr. Jonathan Lewis
Opinion No. 2026-064
Page 11
disclosure have been met. The information provided indicates that all the elements are met. Thus,
the custodian’s decision to release these records is consistent with the FOIA.
11. Commendations and promotions. This Office has consistently opined that employeeevaluation and job-performance records include written commendations and promotion letters
made by or at the behest of an employer and that evaluate the employee.
61 Thus, the letters of
“appreciation” and “commendation” and the promotion letter directly from supervisors praising
you for specific conduct while on duty are best classified as employee-evaluation or jobperformance records. Such records cannot be released unless all the following elements have been
met: suspension or termination; administrative finality; relevance; and compelling public interest.
Because these records do not entail your suspension or termination, the first two elements are not
met, and such letters should be withheld.
12. Unsolicited complaint. This Office has consistently concluded that unsolicited complaints or
allegations about a public employee that are not generated by or at the behest of the employer are
personnel records subject to release62—even if they are “unsubstantiated or later determined to be
unfounded.”63 Such unsolicited records are not transformed into an employee-evaluation or
job-performance record by virtue of a subsequent investigation.
64 A Sergeant filed a complaint
against you to the Chief, which led to an internal investigation. This complaint is best classified as
a personnel record subject to release. Thus, the custodian’s decision to release this record is
consistent with the FOIA.
Assistant Attorney General William R. Olson prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.
Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General
61 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.
62 E.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2025-063, 2016-014, 2015-053, 2012-074, 2010-109, 2001-028, 2000-058.
63 Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2015-053.
64 Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2001-123, 2000-166, 98-130, 98-001, 96-257.