Holladay v. Glass
2017 Ark. App. LEXIS 684
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On Dec. 7, 2015, inmate Johnnie Lee Phillips attempted to escape while being transported; a transportation manifest ("trip sheet") listed everyone on the vehicle.
- On Dec. 10, 2015, Bessie Glass (Phillips’s aunt) requested the trip sheet under the Arkansas FOIA; Pulaski County Sheriff’s Office denied the request as exempt under Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(6) ("undisclosed investigations").
- Glass sued the Sheriff and Sergeant Warner seeking the manifest and attorney’s fees; the trial court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss and determined the case was not moot.
- The circuit court held the manifest was a routine, non-investigatory record (citing Hengel), ordered disclosure, and awarded Glass attorney’s fees and costs because the defendants’ withholding was not substantially justified.
- Defendants appealed; the majority affirmed, applying the FOIA’s liberal construction in favor of disclosure and finding Hengel controlling.
- Judge Gladwin dissented, arguing the trip sheet became investigatory after the escape and that withholding was substantially justified, so he would reverse the disclosure and fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a transport manifest falls within FOIA exemption for "undisclosed investigations" | Glass: manifest is a routine log/list and not investigatory; Hengel controls | Holladay: manifest became part of an ongoing criminal investigation (witnesses/suspects), so exemption applies; trial court should review in camera | Manifest is a non-investigatory public record; exemption does not apply (affirmed) |
| Whether Hengel or Johninson controls interpretation of (b)(6) | Glass: Hengel controls; logs/shift sheets not investigatory | Holladay: Johninson requires courts to review whether disclosure would impair an investigation; exemption applies here | Hengel is controlling; Johninson does not alter Hengel’s application (affirmed) |
| Whether Glass substantially prevailed for fee-shifting under Ark. Code §25-19-207(d)(1) | Glass: she prevailed and is entitled to fees unless defendant was substantially justified | Holladay: they were substantially justified by reliance on AG opinions and reasonable belief records were investigatory | Glass substantially prevailed; defendants were not substantially justified; fees awarded (affirmed) |
| Standard of review for statutory interpretation and fee award | Glass: FOIA construed liberally in favor of disclosure; statutory standards permit de novo review of interpretation and abuse-of-discretion review of fees | Holladay: argues alternate reading of exemption and justification for withholding | Court reviewed statutory questions de novo, applied liberal construction for disclosure, and affirmed fee award as not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Hengel v. Pine Bluff, 307 Ark. 457 (1991) (jail logs, arrest records, and shift sheets are not investigatory and thus not exempt under (b)(6))
- Johninson v. Stodola, 316 Ark. 423 (1994) (defining investigatory records and directing in-camera review where applicability of (b)(6) is contested)
- Harris v. City of Fort Smith, 366 Ark. 277 (2006) (standard for awarding attorney’s fees under the FOIA and scope of appellate review)