Can a police department release an officer's name and job title to a FOIA requester, even if the officer objects?

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2013. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Plain-English summary

A Little Rock Police Department sergeant asked the Attorney General to review the records custodian's decision to release the names and positions of all current full-time LRPD employees in response to a FOIA request, which also sought a designation of who lives in Little Rock and who doesn't. The sergeant objected to release of his own name and position because of who the requester was and what he suspected the requester might do with the information, and separately objected to release of his address, though the custodian had already said addresses were being withheld under FOIA's home-address exemption.

The Attorney General found the release of names and positions consistent with the FOIA. Employee names and job titles are personnel records that rarely trigger the "clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy" exemption, particularly where, as the sergeant himself acknowledged, the requester already had his name, position, and photograph. Because the custodian had already confirmed addresses would be withheld under a separate exemption, the opinion confined its analysis to the name-and-position question and explained that questions about the requester's identity or motives fall outside the scope of the Attorney General's statutory review role entirely.

Background and analysis (as of 2013)

Arkansas's FOIA lets a custodian, requester, or record subject seek an Attorney General opinion on whether a disclosure decision is consistent with the Act, but that review is limited strictly to the custodian's decision about a specific category of records, not to broader questions about who is asking or why. The opinion reaffirmed the well-established rule that a public employee's name and position are "personnel records" subject to disclosure unless doing so is a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy, a standard the office has consistently held basic name-and-title information rarely meets, especially where the information is already independently known to the requester.

Because the custodian had represented that the sergeant's home address was being withheld under the FOIA's personal-contact-information exemption, the opinion treated that part of the request as resolved and didn't need to weigh in on it. The opinion explicitly declined to address the sergeant's questions about the requester's identity, intentions, or the surrounding circumstances of the request, noting the Attorney General's statutory authority under this provision reaches only the custodian's disclosure decision, not the requester's conduct or purposes.

Citations and references

Statutes (as they stood in 2013):

• A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i), authorizing a custodian, requester, or record subject to seek an Attorney General opinion on a disclosure decision
• A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12), the personnel-records exemption for clearly unwarranted invasions of personal privacy
• A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(13), the exemption for personal contact information, including home addresses

Source

• Landing page: https://arkansasag.gov/divisions/opinions-foia/attorney-general-opinions-search/

Original opinion text

STATE OF ARKANSAS

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
DUSTIN McDANIEL

Opinion No. 2013-152

December 10, 2013

Sergeant Jeffrey Plunkett
Little Rock Police Department
700 W. Markham Street

Little Rock, Arkansas 72201

Dear Sgt. Plunkett:

You have requested my opinion regarding the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act
("FOIA"). Your request is based on A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (Supp. 2013). This
subsection authorizes the custodian, requester, or the subject of personnel or employee
evaluation records to seek an opinion from this office stating whether the custodian's
decision regarding the release of such records is consistent with the FOIA.

Your letter indicates that someone has sent an FOIA request to the Little Rock Police
Department for three categories of information on "all current full-time employees." For
this group, the requester seeks the "employees' names and positions with the designation
of who lives in Little Rock and who does not." The custodian has determined that the
names and positions qualify as "personnel records" under the FOIA and should be
released. The custodian has also cited the FOIA exception (section 25-19-105(b)(13)) for
"personal contact information," which includes "home addresses."

You object to the release of your name and position because of who the requester is and
what the requester might plan to do with that information. You also object to the release
of your "address." But the custodian has stated that "[y]our address is covered under
A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(13)." It thus does not appear from the records before me that the
custodian intends to release your address. Consequently, I will confine this opinion to a
review of the custodian's decision regarding your name and position.

323 CENTER STREET, SUITE 200 * LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
TELEPHONE (501) 682-2007 * FAX (501) 682-8084
INTERNET WEBSITE * http://www.ag.state.ar.us/

Sergeant Jeffrey Plunkett
Little Rock Police Department

Opinion No. 2013-152
Page 2

RESPONSE

My statutory duty is to state whether the custodian's decision is consistent with the
FOIA. Because I have not reviewed any specific records, I can only opine more generally
about how the FOIA applies to the release of public employees' names and positions.

This office has consistently held that a public employee's name and position qualify as
"personnel records" under the FOIA.1 The FOIA requires that personnel records be
disclosed unless doing so constitutes a clearly unwarranted invasion of the employee's
personal privacy.2 This office has repeatedly held that the release of a public employee's
name and position rarely rises to that level.3 This is particularly the case where (as you
say here) the requester already has your name, position, and photograph.

Therefore, the custodian's decision to release your name and position is, in my opinion,
consistent with the FOIA.

You also ask me to address several questions relating to the requester's identity, how he
intends to use the information he obtains, and the circumstances surrounding his request.
My authority under the FOIA only extends to reviewing the custodian's decision about
whether to release certain employee-related records in response to an FOIA request.
Thus, I am unable to address your several specific questions, all of which fall outside the
scope of my authority.4

Assistant Attorney General Ryan Owsley prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.
Sincerely,

DUSTIN McDANIEL
Attorney General

DM/RO:cyh

1 See Op. Att'y Gen. Nos. 2011-114, 2011-045.
2 A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12).
3 See Op. Att'y Gen. 2011-045.

4 See Op. Att'y Gen. Nos. 2013-088, 2010-140, and 1996-386.