Daugherty v. Jacksonville Police Department
411 S.W.3d 196
Ark.2012Background
- Daugherty, the appellant, challenged a Pulaski County circuit court ruling that the Jacksonville Police Department (the Department) did not violate FOIA.
- Daugherty's August 13, 2010 FOIA request sought audio/video recordings from Officers Wheeler and Huddleston between late June and mid‑August 2010.
- The Department refused portions as too broad/burdensome, citing over 400 recordings, later asserting 1,000+ recordings and a $27.51 hourly rate for compilation.
- Daugherty filed a third FOIA request (Sept. 2, 2010) and the Department stated many records had been purged and could not be produced.
- The circuit court ruled the August 16 response was a compliant FOIA response and that the $2,475.90 deposit was reasonable under 25-19-109, and that purge after 45 days was not unreasonable; Daugherty appealed.
- The appellate court ultimately affirmed in part and reversed/remanded in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the August 16 response complied with FOIA. | Daugherty argues the response denied access by labeling the request too broad. | Department contends it attempted good-faith location of records and provided some records. | Error: August 16 response was not compliant with FOIA. |
| Whether the $2,475.90 deposit for copying complied with FOIA. | Daugherty asserts statutory limits on copying/duplication fees were violated. | Department says deposit was reasonable under 25-19-109 given the scope. | Error: fee structure violated 25-19-105 and 25-19-109; deposit not reasonable. |
| Whether the September 2 request was timely and reasonably complied with. | Records were purged, so timely compliance did not occur. | Purging after 45 days is not unreasonable and records could not be located. | Error: court erred in approving timely/reasonable compliance given purge policy. |
| Whether destruction/purging of records violated FOIA. | Purging after a FOIA request violated preservation and FOIA duties. | Purging was Department policy and not arbitrary/capricious. | No FOIA violation; destruction not found negligent under FOIA. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nabholz Constr. Corp. v. Contractors for Pub. Prot. Ass’n, 371 Ark. 411, 266 S.W.3d 689 (Ark. 2007) (liberal construction of FOIA favors disclosure)
- Fox v. Perroni, 358 Ark. 251, 188 S.W.3d 881 (Ark. 2004) (FOIA opened records; broad interpretation in favor of disclosure)
- City of Rockport v. City of Malvern, 2010 Ark. 449, 374 S.W.3d 660 (Ark. 2010) (standard of review for FOIA findings; clearly erroneous standard)