Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105

Section 25-19-105 excludes undisclosed law enforcement investigations from public access and bars incarcerated felons from accessing public records.

Burgie v. State of Arkansas · filed 2021-09-16(b)(6), (a)(1)(B)(i)

However, pursuant to FOIA, “undisclosed investigations by law enforcement agencies of suspected criminal activities . . . shall not be deemed to be made open to the public.” Berger v. Bryant, 2020 Ark. 157, 598 S.W.3d 36 (citing Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(6)). Moreover, FOIA further prohibits access to any public record to a “person who at the time of the request has pleaded guilty to or been found guilty of a felony and is incarcerated in a correctional facility[.]” Id. (citing Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(a)(1)(B)(i)).

The law-enforcement exemption prevents interference with ongoing investigations, but no longer applies once the case is closed by administrative action.

McCambridge v. City of Little Rock · filed 1989-03-13(b)(6)

The only purpose of the exemption, as written, is to prevent interference with ongoing investigations. When a case is closed by administrative action, as this one was, the reason for the exemption no longer exists, and the trial court correctly ordered the statements released. Accordingly, we affirm the ruling of the trial court that the police reports are to be released.

Section 25-19-105 requires disclosure of jail logs, arrest records, and shift sheets when they are not sufficiently investigative to qualify as undisclosed law-enforcement investigations.

Hengel v. City of Pine Bluff · filed 1991-12-23(a) and (b)(6)

Accordingly, we hold that for purposes of the FOIA the jail log, arrest records and shift sheet are not records containing undisclosed law enforcement investigations and are subject to disclosure pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105 (1987).

Section 25-19-105(b)(6) exempts investigative files when the law-enforcement investigation remains open and ongoing, including when the file pertains to a larger investigation.

Opinion No. · filed 2002-11-19(b)(6)

If a finder of fact determines that an investigation remains "open and ongoing," the investigative file will be exempt from disclosure pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105 (b)(6).

Section 25-19-105(b)(9) requires the agency invoking the competitors exemption to prove that the requested records are exempt, and requires the trial court to inspect the records and determine what may be withheld.

Gannett River States Publishing Co. v. Arkansas Industrial Development Commission · filed 1990-11-19(b)(9)

The trial court should have examined the Tokusen file, as requested, and made its findings as to what information, if any, should be withheld under the “competitors” exemption; and what information, if any, should be disclosed. ... The trial court must ultimately decide whether the agency has met its burden of proving that the records are exempt from disclosure.

Section 25-19-105(b)(8) exempts documents protected by a court order or rule only when the order actually restricts public disclosure, while subsection (b)(9) does not treat media or adverse litigants seeking public information as competitors.

City of Fayetteville v. Edmark · filed 1990-12-17(b)(8), (b)(9)

The statutory exemption relied on by the City is Section 25-19-105(b)(8), which exempts documents “. . .which are protected from disclosure by order or rule of court.” ... Thus, the protective order neither by its terms nor by the judge’s intent protected the memoranda from the FOIA disclosure requirements. ... In the instance case, there was no protective order in place designed to prohibit disclosure to the public of the legal memoranda. The provisions of Section 25-19-105(b)(8) simply do not apply to the factual situation before the court. ... The City includes in its argument that the records are protected from disclosure by Section 25-19-105(b)(9) which exempts “[f]iles which, if disclosed, would give advantage to competitors or bidders.” ... The appellees are not “competitors” of the City within the clear meaning of the statute.

Section 25-19-105(a) requires a nondisclosure provision under the FOIA to be specific, with unclear or ambiguous exemptions construed in favor of disclosure.

Orsini v. State · filed 2000-03-23(a)

A statutory provision for nondisclosure must be specific. ... Less than clear or ambiguous exemptions will be interpreted in a manner favoring disclosure.

Section 25-19-105(b)(8) exempts documents protected from disclosure by a court rule from the FOIA's release requirement.

Gannett River States Publishing Co. v. Arkansas Judicial Discipline & Disability Commission · filed 1990-12-21(b)(8)

The ultimate issue in this case is whether the information sought is excepted from that which must be released under the FOIA by virtue of Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(8) (Supp. 1989) because it consists of “[documents which are protected from disclosure by . . . rule of court.” ... Applying the general rule of prospectivity which governs interpretation of statutes, we conclude that the application of the May 14,1990, version of Rule 7. is prospective, and thus the commission is not required to divulge its actions prior to that time which were protected under the former rule and statute.

Section 25-19-105(b)(8) permits withholding records protected by a court order or rule, including investigative files sealed when necessary to protect a criminal defendant’s due-process right to a fair trial.

Arkansas Gazette Co. v. Goodwin · filed 1990-12-21(b)(8)

In discharging his duty, the trial court weighed Clark’s constitutional right to a fair trial against the public’s right to access to public records as provided for in the FOIA and, in exercising his authority under Ark. Code Ann. § 29-19-105(b) (8) (Supp. 1989), concluded a reasonable protective measure was warranted by the circumstances: the closing of the investigation files of the state police and the files of all investigative agencies, including the legislative audit. ... Suffice it to say, FOIA must give way in this instance to “due process.”

The competitive-advantage exemption excludes files whose disclosure would give competitors or bidders an advantage, but whether it applies to a business's tax records must be decided case by case.

Opinion No. · filed 1991-12-31(b)(9)(A)

Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105 (b)(9)(A) (Cum. Supp. 1991) provides in pertinent part: It is the specific intent of this section that the following shall not be deemed to be made open to the public under the provisions of this chapter: . . . [f]iles which, if disclosed, would give advantage to competitors or bidders. . . . In Op. Att'y. Gen. 87-259 this office opined, and I concur, that the determination as to whether city tax information might be protected from disclosure under the competitive advantage exemption of the Freedom of Information Act, § 25-19-105 (b)(9)(A), must be made on a case-by-case basis after consultation with the parties involved.

The exemption for personnel records requires weighing the public's right to know against the individual's right to privacy, with disclosure favored when the public interest is substantial.

Young v. Rice · filed 1992-03-09(b)(10)

The fact that section 25-19-105(b)(10) exempts disclosure of personnel records only when a clearly unwarranted personal privacy invasion would result, indicates that certain “warranted” privacy invasions will be tolerated. Thus, section 25-19-105 (b) (10) requires that the public’s right to knowledge of the records be weighed against an individual’s right to privacy.

Section 25-19-105(a) makes public records open to inspection unless an exception is specifically provided by the statute itself or another law enacted for that purpose.

Troutt Bros., Inc. v. Emison · filed 1992-11-09(a)

This language provides that only the General Assembly can create exceptions to the FOIA. We have followed this directive and have required that a statute specifically provide for nondisclosure before we will exempt a public record from the act.

Section 25-19-105(a) establishes a general right for Arkansas citizens to inspect and copy public records, subject to exceptions specifically provided by the FOIA or another statute.

Furman v. Holloway · filed 1993-03-22(a)

Except as otherwise specifically provided by this section or by laws specifically enacted to provide otherwise, all public records shall be open to inspection and copying by any citizen of the State of Arkansas during the regular business hours of the custodian of the records. ... The materials Mr. Holloway has requested are exempted from our FOIA by statute, but there is a method for obtaining those records contained in the statute, which does not require a showing of “particularized need.” Therefore, as did the trial court, we find no requirement for appellee to show a “particularized need” before he can inspect his inmate file. We do note, however, that the restrictions imposed by the circuit court’s order are permissible under the statute and we find them to be reasonable.

Section 25-19-105(b)(6)'s narrowly construed exemption for undisclosed investigations requires the court to review the pertinent files in camera before deciding whether the exemption applies.

Johninson v. Stodola · filed 1994-03-21(b)(6)

We conclude that the circuit court must review the relevant files in camera in order to make its decision that this exemption applies across the board to those files. ... We hold that in order to invoke a narrowly construed exemption under the FOIA, the circuit court must peruse the pertinent data in question in order to make an informed decision.

Section 25-19-105 applies different disclosure standards to personnel records and employee evaluation or job performance records, with job performance records requiring final resolution of a suspension or termination proceeding, a basis for the action, and a compelling public interest.

Opinion No. · filed 1994-09-27(b)(10), (c)(1)

A different standard for disclosure applies as well, depending on whether it is a "personnel record" or "employee evaluation or job performance" record that is being requested. Personnel records are exempt only to the extent their disclosure would constitute a "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." A.C.A. § 25-19-105 (b)(10). Employee evaluation or job performance records, however, are subject to public disclosure only upon final administrative resolution of any suspension or termination proceeding, where the records formed a basis for the suspension or termination, and where a compelling public interest in their disclosure exists. A.C.A. § 25-19-105 (c)(1). All of these factors must be present in order for these types of records to be disclosed.

Section 25-19-105 generally makes personnel records disclosable unless disclosure would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, while employee evaluation or job performance records are disclosable only after a final suspension or termination resolution, if they formed the basis for that decision and a compelling public interest supports disclosure.

Opinion No. · filed 2003-10-22(b)(10), (c)(1)

Under the FOIA, personnel records are subject to disclosure except to the extent that their release would constitute a "clearly unwarranted invasion of [the] personal privacy" of the employee. A.C.A. § 25-19-105 (b)(10). ... "Employee evaluation/job performance records" are subject to disclosure under the FOIA only if the following three conditions apply: (1) There has been a final administrative resolution of any suspension or termination proceeding; (2) The records in question formed a basis for the decision made in that proceeding to suspend or terminate the employee; and (3) There is a compelling public interest in the disclosure of the records in question. A.C.A. § 25-19-105 (c)(1).

Section 25-19-105(c)(1) permits disclosure of employee evaluation/job performance records only after a final suspension or termination proceeding, when the records formed the basis for that decision, and when there is a compelling public interest in disclosure.

Opinion No. · filed 2004-07-28(c)(1)

The standard for the release of "employee evaluation/job performance records" is set forth at A.C.A. § 25-19-105 (c)(1). Specifically, such records are subject to disclosure only under the following three conditions: (1) There has been a final administrative resolution of any suspension or termination proceeding; (2) The records in question formed a basis for the decision made in that proceeding to suspend or terminate the employee; and (3) There is a compelling public interest in the disclosure of the records in question. A.C.A. § 25-19-105 (c)(1). In seeking the professor's records, you have maintained that a compelling public interest exists in their disclosure. The University has countered that the records are not subject to disclosure because there has been no suspension or termination because the professor resigned. In my opinion, the University is justified in this response, since the first of the three prongs set forth above has not been met.

Employee evaluation or job performance records may be released only after a final suspension or termination resolution, if the records formed a basis for that decision and a compelling public interest supports disclosure; reducing a termination to a suspension does not defeat the test.

Opinion No. · filed 2008-04-14(c)(1)

The fact that the terminations were reduced to suspensions does not lessen the "compelling public interest prong" of the A.C.A. § 25-19-105 (c)(1) test. The employees were nonetheless suspended for purposes of applying the A.C.A. § 25-19-105 (c)(1) exemption. Assuming the termination letters "formed a basis" for the ultimate suspension decision for purposes of that prong of the A.C.A. § 25-19-105 (c)(1) test, in my opinion the letters are subject to inspection and copying under the FOIA.

Employee evaluation or job performance records may be released only after final administrative resolution, if they formed a basis for the suspension or termination, and if a compelling public interest exists.

Opinion No. · filed 2008-04-15(c)(1)

"Employee evaluation or job performance records" are releasable under A.C.A. § 25-19-105 (c)(1) only if the following three conditions have been met: 1. There has been a final administrative resolution of any suspension or termination proceeding; 2. The records in question formed a basis for the decision made in that proceeding to suspend or terminate the employee; and 3. There is a compelling public interest in the disclosure of the records in question. A.C.A. § 25-19-105 (c)(1) (Supp. 2007).

Section 25-19-105(c)(1) makes employee evaluation and job performance records open to public inspection only after final administrative resolution of a suspension or termination proceeding, when the records formed the basis for the decision and a compelling public interest supports disclosure.

Opinion No. · filed 2009-04-23(c)(1)

Subsection 25-19-105 (c)(1) of the Code provides in pertinent part: [A]ll employee evaluation or job performance records, including preliminary notes and other materials, shall be open to public inspection only upon final administrative resolution of any suspension or termination proceeding at which the records form a basis for the decision to suspend or terminate the employee and if there is a compelling public interest in their disclosure.

Section 25-19-105(c)(1) generally keeps employee evaluation or job-performance records, including investigative materials, closed to public inspection unless a final administrative suspension or termination resolution used the records as a basis and there is a compelling public interest in disclosure.

Davis v. Van Buren Sch. Dist. · filed 2019-03-06(c)(1)

Appellant's additional argument that the records fit within the narrow exception allowing disclosure as provided under section 25-19-105(c)(1) is equally unavailing. There was no evidence to suggest that there was a final administrative resolution of any suspension or termination proceeding at which the records at issue formed a basis for the decision to suspend or terminate the employee. It was undisputed that neither employee was suspended or terminated as a result of the records at issue. Rather, appellant argued that the employee's resignation following the second incident amounted to a constructive termination under the guidance of Attorney General Opinion 2007-061, which suggested that there may be circumstances in which a resignation could be considered a constructive termination. Even if it were true that a resignation could amount to a constructive termination under certain circumstances, about which we offer no opinion, we cannot say that those circumstances existed here. Appellee explained at the hearing that the employee voluntarily resigned after the incident when the employee was told that the matter was under investigation. Appellee further explained that the resignation was not the result of any negotiation with the employee. Under these circumstances, the employee resigned before any administrative hearing, resolution, or appeal even took place. Thus, the job-performance records requested by appellant are exempt from disclosure and do not fit the narrow exception permitting their disclosure as outlined in section 25-19-105(c)(1). Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court's decision.

Section 25-19-105 requires the appropriate governmental agency to provide reasonable access for examining and copying existing public records, even when the records are held by a private custodian.

Swaney v. Tilford · filed 1995-05-30(a), (d), and (e)

We hold that where the records in question are established as “public records” pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-103 (1) and not otherwise exempted from disclosure, the appropriate governmental agency, in this case the ADFA, shall have the responsibility to provide reasonable access for examination and copying of such public records which are in existence at the time of the request, as provided by Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105.

Section 25-19-105 makes emails about public business subject to public access regardless of whether they are sent through private or official email systems.

Bradford v. Director, Employment Security Department · filed 2003-11-05

Emails transmitted between Bradford and the governor that involved the public’s business are subject to public access under the Freedom of Information Act, whether transmitted to private email addresses through private internet providers or whether sent to official government email addresses over means under the control of the State’s Division of Information Services.

Section 25-19-105(a) opens public records to inspection but allows a specific statutory nondisclosure rule to control, so records made confidential by the Vital Statistics Act are exempt from FOIA disclosure.

Arkansas Department of Health v. Westark Christian Action Council · filed 1995-11-13(a)

The FOIA opens “all public records” for public inspection. Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(a) (Supp. 1993). ... A statutory provision for nondisclosure must be specific. Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(a) (Supp. 1993); Troutt Bros. v. Emison, 311 Ark. 27, 841 S.W.2d 604 (1992). ... Because we decide that Form ACHS-01 is a vital record within the confines of the Vital Statistics Act and exempt from the FOIA, we need not address whether it is also a “medical record.”

Section 25-19-105(a) makes public records open to inspection and copying unless this section or another law specifically provides an exemption.

Byrne v. Eagle · filed 1995-02-2025-19-105(a)

Hence, it is clear that there must be a specific statutory mandate to exempt public records from disclosure.

Section 25-19-105(a) requires disclosure of public records unless a specific exemption applies, with unclear exemptions construed in favor of disclosure.

Arkansas Department of Finance & Administration v. Pharmacy Associates, Inc. · filed 1998-06-04(a)

Under the FOIA, a person can inspect and obtain copies of all “public records,” unless the law provides otherwise. ... We liberally construe the FOIA to accomplish its broad and laudable purpose that public business be performed in an open and public manner. ... A statutory provision for nondisclosure must be specific. Id.; § 25-19-105(a). Less than clear or ambiguous exemptions will be interpreted in a manner favoring disclosure.

Section 25-19-105(a) gives any Arkansas citizen, including the Attorney General acting in his official capacity, standing to seek inspection and copying of public records and to appeal a denial.

Bryant v. Weiss · filed 1998-12-21(a)

Here, the statute provides that “any citizen of the State of Arkansas” shall have the right to inspect and copy all public records. Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(a). ... Consistent with the interpretation of the federal Freedom of Information Act, and relying upon this court’s own previous liberal construction of the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act concerning standing to proceed, we hold that the Attorney General, acting in his official capacity and using the resources of his office, does possess standing to appeal the denial of his request pursuant to the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act.

Section 25-19-105(a)(1)(A) allows only an Arkansas citizen to request to inspect or copy public records.

Hollis v. Fayetteville School District No. 1 · filed 2016-03-02(a)(1)(A)

The district’s second attempt to obtain a protective order did not formally commence a FOIA case because, by statute, only an Arkansas citizen may request to inspect or copy public records or seek review of the denial of such a request. Ark. Code Ann. §§ 25-19-105(a)(1)(A) & 25-19-107(a).

Section 25-19-105 does not require disclosure of private attorneys’ litigation files created to defend physicians sued in their personal capacities.

Harrill & Sutter, PLLC v. Farrar · filed 2012-04-26(a)(1)(A)

The litigation file requested was created in the course of this representation, not in the course of public business. This is clearly not a case in which the private attorneys represented a public entity subject to the FOIA, preparing records that would be subject to the FOIA and serving as the custodian of those records. The records requested here are simply not public records subject to disclosure under the FOIA.

Subsection (b)(7) exempts unpublished memoranda, working papers, and correspondence of the Governor, including qualifying records received from third parties, but the exemption does not apply merely because records are held by the Governor's office.

Opinion No. · filed 2002-08-29(b)(7)

In my opinion the answer to your third question is A) "no," the records are not exempt if located at ADED; and B) "yes," the records are exempt if located in the Governor's office. ... The "working papers" exemption can apply to documents in the possession of the Governor even if the documents were received from third parties.

Section 25-19-105 allows a citizen to request public records from their custodian, who must provide or arrange reasonable access to them, including when the records are stored elsewhere.

Fox v. Perroni · filed 2004-06-24(a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(C), (e)

The FOIA requests here were directed to Judge Fox as custodian of the check, and the FOIA’s definition of “public record” does not require that the custodian be the person who actually keeps the document, nor does it say that the custodian must be required to keep the document. ... The definition of “public record” under the FOIA is not dependent upon who keeps the record or where it is kept — just that it either is required to be kept or is otherwise kept. ... In light of our previous opinions and our liberal construction in favor of disclosure, we cannot say the trial court’s interpretation of the term “administrative control” is in error. ... As Judge Fox is the public official charged with the responsibility of managing the affairs and conduct of his office, we hold that the trial court correctly ruled that Judge Fox was the custodian of Mr. Eanes’s check with both the power and responsibility under the FOIA to either provide a copy of the canceled check to Mr. James or to make arrangements for reasonable access to the check.

Section 25-19-105 requires public records to be made available for inspection and copying, but does not require an agency to surrender them for taking or destruction.

Nolan v. Little · filed 2004-10-14(a)(1) and (a)(1)(A)

Our interpretation is consistent with the provisions of the entire Act, which provides for all public records to be open to “inspection and copying” by any citizen. Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(a)(1). Removal and destructive testing of seed samples go far beyond the inspection and copying of public records. ... Furthermore, FOIA only requires that the State Plant Board provide “public records” for inspection and copying, not for taking and destroying. Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105 (a)(1)(A).

Section 25-19-105(a) opens public records for public inspection and copying, with disclosure turning on whether the requested materials qualify as public records.

Pulaski County v. Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Inc. · filed 2007-07-20(a)

The FOIA, codified at Arkansas Code Annotated § 25-19-101 et seq., opens “all public records” for public inspection and copying. Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(a). ... However, we hold that in this particular case, it is necessary to conduct an in camera review of the e-mails to discern whether these e-mails relate solely to personal matters or whether they reflect a substantial nexus with Pulaski County’s activities, thereby classifying them as public records. ... Accordingly, we remand this case to the circuit court with instruction to conduct an in camera review to determine if these e-mails “constitute a record of the performance of official functions that are or should be carried out by a public official or employee” thereby making them “public records” pursuant to the FOIA.

The statute exempts personnel records when disclosure would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy and exempts home addresses of nonelected municipal employees, but it does not categorically exempt employee home telephone numbers, which require a fact-specific privacy determination.

Opinion No. · filed 2005-07-25(b)(12), (b)(13)

Rather, it seems that the City made a categorical determination that its employees' home telephone numbers are encompassed within the term "home addresses," and are thus exempt from release under A.C.A. § 25-19-105 (b)(13). It is my opinion that this is inconsistent with the FOIA. A categorical decision not to release any City employee's number, regardless of whether it is listed or unlisted, would in my opinion have to be premised upon the likelihood of harm or harassment as a consequence of releasing the number. In my opinion such a decision is inconsistent with the FOIA, particularly considering the express exemption for "home addresses of nonelected . . . municipal employees. . . ." A.C.A. § 25-19-105 (b)(13) (Supp. 2003). In the absence of a similar blanket exemption for home telephone numbers, I continue to hold the view that unless specialized facts indicate a heightened privacy interest in listed telephone numbers, those numbers, if requested under the FOIA, are not exempt from disclosure; but unlisted telephone numbers, in which there clearly is a heightened privacy interest, should be withheld.

Section 25-19-105(f)(1)-(3) requires disclosure of reasonably segregable nonexempt material after all information identifying a taxpayer or other person or entity is redacted.

Ryan & Co. AR, Inc. v. Weiss · filed 2007-09-27(f)(1)-(3)

Considering the statute just as it reads, we conclude that under Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(f)(l)-(3), the legal opinions can be disclosed once confidential information is redacted of any information that identifies a taxpayer or other individual or entity. That includes not only the name, address, and any other identifying information or numbers, such as taxpayer ID numbers, but also any facts that would reveal identity. DF&A is not obligated to compile or otherwise manage the information sought; however, it is required to redact any and all identifying information of any form.

Section 25-19-105 treats employee salary information as personnel records generally subject to disclosure when disclosure would not clearly invade personal privacy, requires notice before release, and limits the Attorney General’s review to whether the records are exempt.

Opinion No. · filed 2009-10-09(b)(12), (c)(3)(A), and (c)(3)(B)(i)

Therefore, records reflecting salary information must be provided in response to a proper request under the FOIA, but the FOIA's notification procedure must be followed. ... Accordingly, in my opinion, you have correctly determined that the requested documents containing salary information constitute personnel records that are subject to disclosure under subsection 25-19-105 (b)(12).

Section 25-19-105(b)(2) does not exempt a list merely stating that an employee resigned or retired for health reasons unless the record has a relationship to diagnosing or treating a medical condition.

Opinion No. · filed 2010-06-11(b)(2)

The requested list does not bear the character of a "medical record" as that term is understood in subsection 25-19-105 (b)(2). ... The exemption requires a relationship to diagnosis or treatment of a medical condition. ... A list stating that a person resigned or retired "for health reasons" does not rise to the level contemplated by the medical-record exception, in my opinion.

Section 25-19-105 requires a custodian with necessary duplicating equipment to furnish requested copies for a fee limited to actual reproduction costs, excluding existing agency personnel time.

Daugherty v. Jacksonville Police Department · filed 2012-06-14(a)(1)(A), (a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(C), (d)(2)(A), (d)(3)(A)(i)

The applicable provision to her request is section 25-19-105(d), which provides in relevant part as follows: ... (2)(A) Upon request and payment of a fee as provided in subdivision (d)(3) of this section, the custodian shall furnish copies of public records if the custodian has the necessary duplicating equipment. ... (S)(A)(i) Except as provided in § 25-19-109 or by law, any fee for copies shall not exceed the actual costs of reproduction, including the costs of the medium of reproduction, supplies, equipment, and maintenance, but not including existing agency personnel time associated with searching for, retrieving, reviewing, or copying the records. ... Thus, under this provision, where Daugherty simply requested a copy of the files, the Department could not charge fees that exceeded the cost of reproduction and certainly could not include the hourly rate of Captain Boyd in assessing costs to Daugherty.

Section 25-19-105 requires disclosure and copying of public records unless a specific statutory or other-law exemption applies; courts may not create an additional exemption for a municipal-utility customer’s home address.

Hopkins v. City of Brinkley · filed 2014-04-03(a)(1)(A)

Arkansas Code Annotated § 25-19-105(a)(1)(A) (Supp.2011) provides that “[e]xcept as otherwise specifically provided by this section or by laws specifically enacted to provide otherwise, all public records shall be open to inspection and copying by any citizen of the State of Arkansas during the regular business hours of the custodian of the records.” ... Whether certain records should be exempt from the FOIA is a public-policy decision that must be made by the General Assembly and not the courts. E.g., Harris v. City of Fort Smith, 359 Ark. 355, 365, 197 S.W.3d 461, 467 (2004). As we noted in City of Fayetteville v. Edmark, 304 Ark. 179, 194-95, 801 S.W.2d 275, 283 (1990), it is the job of the General Assembly to establish exemptions under the FOIA, and arguments for additional exemptions must be addressed to the General Assembly because this court “can only interpret the exemption as it is written.” Id. (citing McCambridge, 298 Ark. at 233, 766 S.W.2d at 916).

Section 25-19-105(a)(1)(B) bars an incarcerated person convicted of a felony from inspecting or copying public records, while allowing the person's attorney to request disclosable information on the person's behalf; the court upheld this classification as rationally related to preventing misuse and conserving government resources.

Holt v. Howard · filed 2015-11-27(a)(1)(B)

The district court did not err in granting summary judgment because the Act's limitation on those who many benefit from the law is rationally related to at least two legitimate government purposes. First, the Act's classification is rationally related to the prevention of unlawful use of the statute because attorneys are prohibited from assisting clients in criminal or fraudulent enterprises. ... The Act's classification is also rationally related to conserving government resources. Requiring incarcerated felons to make record requests through counsel reduces the number of record requests made to state and local agencies. ... For the reasons discussed above, the Arkansas legislature's classification is rational even if imperfect. We thus conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment on Holt's equal protection claim.

Section 25-19-105(d)(2)(B) requires a public agency, upon request, to provide a record in the requested medium or format when that medium is readily available or conversion to that format is readily achievable; the agency's preference for paper or the burden of a voluminous request does not justify refusal.

Pulaski Cnty. Special Sch. Dist. v. Delaney · filed 2019-04-10(d)(2)(B)

Therefore, the AFOIA requires that an agency, upon request, furnish records in a medium or format in which the records are not maintained, as long as conversion to the new medium or format is readily achievable. ... Because the evidence is undisputed that the financial records were in an electronic format and there is no evidence that they were not readily convertible, we hold that the circuit court did not clearly err in requiring PCSSD to provide the financial records to Delaney in an electronic format. ... Based on the evidence in this case, we hold that the circuit court did not clearly err making this finding.

Section 25-19-105(b)(6) excludes undisclosed law-enforcement investigations from public access, and subsection (a)(1)(B)(i) bars a person convicted of a felony and incarcerated in a correctional facility from accessing any public record.

Berger v. Bill Bryant, Director, Arkansas State Police · filed 2020-04-23(b)(6), (a)(1)(B)(i)

Berger seeks information pursuant to the FOIA, which provides that public records are available for inspection and copying by Arkansas citizens. Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(a)(1)(A) (Supp. 2019). However, “undisclosed investigations by law enforcement agencies of suspected criminal activities” “shall not be deemed to be made open to the public.” Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(6) (Supp. 2019). Moreover, the FOIA further prohibits access to any public record to a “person who at the time of the request has pleaded guilty to or been found guilty of a felony and is incarcerated in a correctional facility[.]” Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(a)(1)(B)(i) (Supp. 2019). Berger is an incarcerated person, which precludes him from access to any public record had he attempted to make a request for “public records.” Thus, even if Berger had requested disclosable information, he would not be entitled to inspect it.

Section 25-19-105(a)(2)(A) gives citizens an independent right to make their own copies of public records, including by photographing them.

Motal v. City of Little Rock · filed 2020-05-13(a)(2)(A)

Therefore, under the plain language of subsection (a)(2)(A) of the statute, we hold that a citizen has the right under FOIA to make a copy of a public record. ... Thus, we hold that in keeping with our mandate to interpret FOIA liberally to accomplish the purpose of promoting free access to public information, the term “copy” should be liberally interpreted to include the taking of a photograph.

Section 25-19-105(b)(6) does not exempt records from a completed, publicly known investigation because the investigation is not “undisclosed.”

City of Fayetteville v. Rose · filed 1988-02-0825-19-105(b)(6)

There was no “undisclosed investigation.” Everyone knew about it.

Sections 25-19-105(a)(2)(A) and (d)(2)(A) govern requests for public records and the custodian’s duty to furnish copies, but a private corporation alone is not an entity covered by the Act that can be sued to compel production.

Nabholz Construction Corp. v. Contractors for Public Protection Ass'n · filed 2007-11-0125-19-105(a)(2)(A), (d)(2)(A)

In the instant case, Nabholz is an Arkansas corporation and is not an entity of the state. As such, it alone cannot be sued under the Act and directed to turn over documents under the Act.

The catch-all exemption keeps a federal-agency record held by a state agency from disclosure when a federal law specifically exempts the record and the federal agency invokes that exemption.

Opinion No. · filed 2008-10-0625-19-105(a)(1)(A)

However, if DSAT provided the ADH with a copy of the above-referenced database or another record that is exempt under 42 U.S.C. § 262a (h), I believe such record would be exempt from disclosure under the Arkansas FOIA when in the possession of the ADH.

Section 25-19-105(b)(6) exempts materials from disclosure only when they concern an investigation that is open and ongoing.

Department of Arkansas State Police v. Keech Law Firm, P.A. · filed 2017-04-2025-19-105(b)(6)

hold that the circuit court correctly interpreted the exemption from section 25-19-105(b)(6) as requiring an investigation to be “open and ongoing” to qualify for nondisclosure under FOIA.

Section 25-19-105(b)(10)(A) exempts records from disclosure when releasing them would reveal the identities of law enforcement officers currently working undercover, including photographs of non-undercover officers when those photographs would identify the officers not shown as undercover.

ARKANSAS STATE POLICE BILL BRYANT, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR, AND AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND KELLI LAPORTE, IN HER · filed 2022-02-03(b)(10)(A)

We agree with the rationale of Atty. Gen. Op. No. 011 and hold that the request for photographs of all uniformed, plain clothed, non-undercover Arkansas State Troopers hired since Racop made a similar request in 2019 is exempt from disclosure under Arkansas Code Annotated section 25-19-105(b)(10)(A). Clearly, comparing information already available to the public, from sources like the Arkansas Transparency website—which provides names, service dates, salaries, race, gender, and other identifying information of State employees, including state troopers—with a list of non-undercover troopers would reveal the identities of the undercover officers.

Section 25-19-105(b)(6) protects undisclosed investigations of suspected criminal activity only when conducted by law-enforcement agencies, while section 25-19-105(b)(9)(A) protects files whose disclosure would give an advantage to competitors or bidders, not unemployment-benefit applicants.

Arkansas Department of Commerce, Division of Workforce Services v. Legal Aid of Arkansas · filed 2022-06-09(b)(6); (b)(9)(A)

Thus, DWS is unequivocally not a law enforcement agency to which the exemption in section 25-19-105(b)(6) for undisclosed investigations of suspected criminal activity applies, and the circuit court correctly ruled that DWS was not entitled to redact its public records on this basis. ... Applicants for unemployment benefits are not “competitors” or “bidders” within the plain language of section 25-19-105(b)(9)(A).

Section 25-19-105(b)(6) exempts undisclosed law-enforcement investigations of suspected criminal activity, but whether the exemption applies is a factual question requiring meaningful fact-finding and in-camera review.

Martin v. Eric Higgins, as Sheriff of Pulaski County, Ar · filed 2024-01-10(b)(6)

An exemption to disclosure exists for “undisclosed investigations by law enforcement agencies of suspected criminal activity.” Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(6) (Supp. 2023). ... Whether an investigation is open and ongoing is a question of fact for the trial court. ... Moreover, our supreme court held in Johninson v. Stodola, 316 Ark. 423, 872 S.W.2d 374 (1994), that it is incumbent upon the trial court to first review the relevant material in camera before determining whether an exemption applies.

Section 25-19-105(b)(7) exempts unpublished memoranda, working papers, and correspondence of members of the General Assembly from public disclosure under the FOIA.

Cave v. Thurston · filed 2022-09-3025-19-105(b)(7)

the Arkansas FOIA at all relevant times stated that ... should not be made open to the public under the FOIA.

Section 25-19-105(c)(1) does not exempt routinely prepared police use-of-force reports when they are officer-written narrative accounts rather than supervisory evaluations or job-performance records.

Thomas v. Hall · filed 2012-02-16(c)(1)

We conclude that use-of-force reports routinely prepared in accordance with General Order 303 are not employee-evaluation or job-performance records. These reports are created by the police officer, not by a supervisor, and are a routine narrative account of the officer’s actions during a specific incident. Furthermore, these reports are not an assessment or evaluation of the police officer’s performance or lack of performance, because they are created by the police officer himself or herself, and self evaluation is not what is contemplated by General Order 303. The fact that these reports are sometimes used by supervisors later on to evaluate a police officer’s performance and in preparing their own incident reports does not transform the initial reports into evaluations or job-performance records.

Section 25-19-105(a)(1)(A) treats circuit court proceedings as nonconfidential.

Ridley Ex Rel. Ridley v. Holt (In Re Holt) · filed 2004-05-11(a)(1)(A)

Circuit court proceedings are not confidential.

Section 25-19-105(b)(8) supports denying a request to depose Arkansas Supreme Court justices about the court’s deliberations.

Stilley v. Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct · filed 2007-06-21(b)(8)

The only thing that he was denied was his request to take the depositions of the justices of this court, which was properly denied pursuant to section 25-19-105 (b)(8).

Section 25-19-105 requires disclosure of public records unless a listed exception applies, and the court-order and competitor exceptions do not shield highway acquisition appraisals absent a qualifying court order or competition for the same state work.

Arkansas Highway & Transportation Department v. Hope Brick Works, Inc. · filed 1988-02-16(a), (b)(8), (b)(9)

The ten legislative exceptions to the disclosure requirements of the Freedom of Information Act are listed in Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105 (1987) as follows: ... (8) Documents which are protected from disclosure by order or rule of court; ... (9) Files which, if disclosed, would give advantage to competitors or bidders; ... Reading the intent as stated by the legislature, considering our declarations in Ragland, and noting that the Act’s exceptions do not include the information requested, we are of the opinion that the order directing disclosure was not contrary to the intent of the Act. ... There was no similar order or rule of the court existing in this case. Therefore, we do not find the disclosures requested in this case were protected by this exception to the disclosure statute. ... This exclusion is clearly intended to prevent competitors from obtaining information about others seeking the same type of work or furnishing material to the state. This exemption has no application to the present factual situation.