Department of Arkansas State Police v. Keech Law Firm, P.A.
2017 Ark. 143
Ark.2017Background
- In 1963 Ruby Lowery Stapleton was murdered; the investigation by the Arkansas State Police (ASP) and White County Sheriff's Office produced a case file but no charges.
- In 1993 family members viewed the file; in November 2013 the Keech Law Firm (on behalf of the family) requested a copy under the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
- ASP refused, invoking the FOIA exemption for materials relating to "undisclosed investigations by law enforcement agencies of suspected criminal activity," asserting the investigation remained open and ongoing.
- Keech sued in Pulaski County Circuit Court to compel disclosure; the court conducted an in camera review of the entire file (by agreement) and concluded the investigation was not "open and ongoing," ordering disclosure.
- ASP appealed; the Arkansas Supreme Court reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and factual findings for clear error and affirmed the circuit court’s order to release the records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Keech) | Defendant's Argument (ASP) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FOIA exemption for "undisclosed investigations" shields the file | FOIA applies; records must be disclosed because no ongoing investigation exists | Exemption applies because the Stapleton investigation remains open/ongoing | Exemption requires an investigation be "open and ongoing"; not applicable here |
| Whether the Stapleton investigation is "open and ongoing" | Investigation is not ongoing; long dormancy and only limited recent activity | Pointed to post-litigation activity and some records as evidence of an ongoing probe | Court found the investigation was not open and ongoing; finding not clearly erroneous |
| Standard of review for statutory interpretation and factual findings | Court should interpret FOIA liberally for disclosure and review facts for clear error | Argued its assessment of ongoing status should be upheld | Statutory interpretation reviewed de novo; factual finding reviewed for clear error and affirmed |
| Whether in camera review was required/appropriate before disclosure | In camera review appropriate and was conducted; supports disclosure | Agreed to review but urged nondisclosure based on file contents | In camera review was conducted and supported the circuit court’s factual determination |
Key Cases Cited
- McCambridge v. City of Little Rock, 298 Ark. 219 (1989) (exemption protects ongoing investigations)
- Martin v. Musteen, 303 Ark. 656 (1990) (clarifies exemption protects investigations that are open and ongoing)
- Johninson v. Stodola, 316 Ark. 423 (1994) (FOIA interpreted liberally; court should conduct in camera review before ruling on exemption)
- Fox v. Perroni, 358 Ark. 251 (2004) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Ligon v. Stewart, 369 Ark. 380 (2007) (factual findings reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard)