Hyman v. Sadler
2017 Ark. App. 292
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Appellant William Whitfield Hyman (an attorney) filed a FOIA request on July 15, 2016, to the Arkansas State Police (ASP) for records including dash-cam video and related materials for Nathan Earp’s June 26, 2016 DWI arrest.
- ASP’s public information officer, Bill Sadler, initially refused production citing the FOIA exemption for undisclosed investigations (Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(6)).
- Hyman filed a FOIA lawsuit in Pulaski County Circuit Court on August 22, 2016, claiming ASP unlawfully withheld the requested records and asserting the denial violated the statute’s three-day response rule.
- After the complaint was filed, Earp pled guilty on August 22, 2016; ASP then produced the requested records on August 23, 2016, asserting the investigation exemption no longer applied.
- The trial court dismissed Hyman’s complaint as moot on September 1, 2016, and ruled he was not a prevailing party for attorney’s-fee purposes; Hyman appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the FOIA claim was moot after ASP produced records | Hyman: production after suit does not moot claim because public interest exception applies; FOIA abuse could be shielded by post-suit compliance | ASP: production after plea rendered any relief pointless; production resulted from an intervening event (guilty plea), not improper tactics | Court held claim moot; public-interest exception not shown |
| Whether the undisclosed-investigation exemption applied | Hyman: investigation was closed by citation; exemption did not apply | ASP: there was an ongoing investigation when request was made, so exemption applied until plea | Court accepted ASP’s timeline; exemption ceased after plea and disclosure was proper |
| Whether the statutory three-day response period applied to Hyman’s first request | Hyman: ASP’s delayed response violated three-day rule | ASP: disputed applicability/timing; produced records after charge disposition | Court did not reach or resolve this issue due to mootness |
| Whether Hyman was a prevailing party entitled to attorney’s fees | Hyman: sought fees and intended to seek them via Arkansas Claims Commission | ASP: not prevailing because case was moot and relief was provided before judgment | Court held Hyman was not a prevailing party |
Key Cases Cited
- Nabholz Constr. Corp. v. Contractors for Pub. Prot. Ass’n, 371 Ark. 411, 266 S.W.3d 689 (Ark. 2007) (FOIA broadly construed in favor of disclosure)
- Pulaski County v. Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 371 Ark. 217, 264 S.W.3d 465 (Ark. 2007) (standard of review in FOIA cases)
- Hopkins v. City of Brinkley, 2014 Ark. 139, 432 S.W.3d 609 (Ark. 2014) (requirements for a record to be subject to FOIA)
- Stilley v. McBride, 332 Ark. 306, 965 S.W.2d 125 (Ark. 1998) (public-interest exception to mootness where FOIA disclosure implicates privacy/public-right balance)
- Campbell v. State, 300 Ark. 570, 781 S.W.2d 14 (Ark. 1989) (mootness doctrine and public-interest exception)
- Board of Directors of Hot Springs v. Pritchett, 2015 Ark. 17, 454 S.W.3d 223 (Ark. 2015) (mootness and lack of substantial public interest prevents exception)
- Kelley v. Johnson, 2016 Ark. 268, 496 S.W.3d 346 (Ark. 2016) (example of FOIA matter raising substantial public interest)
- Whalen v. State, 2016 Ark. 343, 500 S.W.3d 710 (Ark. 2016) (DWI-related procedures can implicate public interest)