FOIA exemption was not at issue. In reaching its conclusion, the court considered the factual findings of the circuit court, specifically the following three: (1) “It is impossible to discern whether some emails at issue were purely business emails while other emails were purely personal in nature.”16 (2) “[A]ll aspects of the personal relationship between [the former comptroller] and Jane Doe are intertwined and enmeshed in the business relationship between Pulaski County and Government e-Management Solutions, Inc..”17 (3) “[T]he emails at issue are public records because they involve a business relationship of the County and are a record of the performance or lack of performance of official functions by [the former comptroller] during the times when he was an employee of Pulaski County.”18 With respect to each of these circuit court findings, the Supreme Court held that, without reviewing the emails, there was simply not enough evidence to support their disclo-
sure under the FOIA.19 The Supreme Court remanded for in camera review. On remand, the trial court found that all of the emails were public records under the Act. On appeal after remand, the Supreme Court addressed, among other issues, whether Jane Doe had standing to contest the disclosure of the emails between her and the former comptroller and whether disclosure of the emails would constitute a violation of her constitutional right of privacy as recognized in an individual’s interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters by government. Regarding the first issue, the court held that Doe did in fact have standing, as a result of her personal stake in trying to block the disclosure of emails that she sent and received.20 In discussing the second issue, the court recognized the unique factual problem of this case—the romantic relationship between the former comptroller and Doe was “indistinguishably intertwined” with the business relationship between the County and GEMS—i.e., many individual emails contained both business matters and sexually explicit personal matters. Ultimately however, relying on one particular email where Doe admonished the former comptroller for sending such explicit matters in a work email, the
court concluded that Doe had knowledge of the risk that emails could become public, and therefore waived any expectation of privacy.21 What is a custodian’s obligation to timely respond to broad and burdensome FOIA requests? Daugherty v. Jacksonville Police Dept., 2012 Ark. 264 Partne Daugherty was stopped for speeding by a Jacksonville police officer on June 24, 2010. On August 13, 2010, Daugherty submitted the first of three requests to the Jacksonville Police Department. In it, she requested, among other things, copies of audio and video images or recordings of all patrol vehicle video and separate body recordings with all audio made by two officers from July 24, 2010, to August 13, 2010. In response, the Jacksonville city attorney sent Daugherty a letter three days later, stating that part of the information requested would be provided but that others were “too broad and burdensome.” Daugherty sent another request four days later, amending it to request the audio and video recordings from July 24, 2010, to August 20, 2010. The city attorney again responded that the request was “too broad and burdensome.”
Declare your independence from Big Bank Inflexibility.
“Heartland offers you more green light, less red tape.” Rick O’Brien, JD, President/CEO
Little Rock | Bryant | Sheridan | Fordyce | www.hbankusa.com | Member FDIC
Vol. 48 No. 2/Spring 2013 The Arkansas Lawyer
17