Thomas v. Hall
2012 Ark. 66
Ark.2012Background
- FOIA dispute over four use-of-force reports by Little Rock Police Lieutenant Hudson regarding the October 29, 2011 Ferneau incident involving Chris Erwin.
- Hall sought disclosure; City of Little Rock initially withheld the four reports; circuit court ordered in camera inspection and then ordered production.
- Circuit court found the use-of-force reports public records not within the employee-evaluation or job-performance exemption of Ark. Code Ann. 25-19-105(c)(1).
- General Order 303 governs routine use-of-force reporting, supervisor review, and potential internal affairs evaluation; initial reports are created by officers, not supervisors.
- On appeal, the Supreme Court held the four reports are not employee-evaluation or job-performance records and thus are subject to disclosure; concurrence agrees with result but analyzes Use-of-Force File separation from employee evaluations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether use-of-force reports are exempt as employee evaluation records | Hall argues reports are narratives, not evaluations, not created to assess performance. | Thomas argues reports support evaluation under 25-19-105(c)(1). | Not exempt; reports are not employee-evaluation records. |
| Whether initial use-of-force reports fall within the deputy privacy/exemption scope | Disclosures should be allowed since not evaluative. | Exemption applies if records are created to evaluate performance. | Exemption not triggered; disclosure required. |
| Does ongoing internal-affairs investigation affect disclosure of initial reports | Ongoing investigation may make records more sensitive. | Investigation status does not convert initial reports into exempt records. | No; initial reports remain subject to disclosure. |
| Do Attorney General opinions define the scope of 'employee evaluation or job performance records' for FOIA | AG opinions guide scope of exemptions. | AG opinions are persuasive but not binding; statute controls. | AG definitions inform interpretation but do not control; reports not exempt. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fox v. Perroni, 358 Ark. 251 (2004) (FOIA exemptions interpreted narrowly in favor of disclosure)
- Ark. Dept. of Fin. & Admin. v. Pharmacy Assoc., Inc., 333 Ark. 451 (1998) (broad disclosure presumption; exemptions construed narrowly)
- White County v. Cities of Judsonia, Kensett and Pangburn, 369 Ark. 151 (2007) (statutory construction rules; give effect to intent)
- Hengel v. City of Pine Bluff, 307 Ark. 457 (1991) (Attorney General opinions as guidance in FOIA context)
- Ark. Professional Bail Bondsman Licensing Bd. v. Oudin, 348 Ark. 48 (2002) (FOIA exemptions and statutory interpretation principles)