Question 1: May a private probation vendor legally collect and retain supervision fees from criminal defendants under color of judicial authority when it fails to comply with the mandatory monthly accounting and reporting requirements of A.C.A. § 16-17-127(f)?
Brief Response: Arkansas Code § 16-17-127 imposes a mandatory reporting obligation, and a contractor that fails to comply with that obligation is operating contrary to the statute. Although that statute does not expressly provide that noncompliance invalidates the contractor’s fee-collection authority, fees collected during a period of noncompliance may be legally vulnerable and subject to challenge.
Question 2: Does a private probation vendor have legal authority to enforce conditions or collect fees from probationers in a district court when operating under an expired municipal contract?
Brief Response: No. Once the municipal contract expires, the vendor’s authority to act expires as well. There is no independent statutory grant of authority allowing a private company to provide these services absent a contract.
Question 3: What remedy or relief is available to court defendants who were required to pay private probation fees under court order during periods of noncompliance with statutory reporting and contract requirements?
Brief Response: Two potential legal remedies that someone may seek are filing a lawsuit on the bond for damages or filing an illegal exaction lawsuit. Because both remedies are fact-intensive, I cannot definitely conclude whether either cause of action exists in any specific case. I provide the general standards for those legal remedies in this opinion.
Question: Is the custodian’s decision to release the requested records with redactions consistent with the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)?
Brief Response: In my opinion, the records the custodian has provided for my review are mixed records. The emails constitute the personnel records of the listed employees, and nothing within them, if released, would amount to a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Accordingly, the custodian’s decision to release the emails is consistent with the FOIA. The documents entitled “Supervisory Evaluation Form,” “Administrative Evaluation Form,” “Officer Resume,” and “Concise Officer History” appear to be the evaluation records of the named employees. The custodian proposes releasing the evaluation records of those employees who were suspended or terminated as a result of the listed incidents, while withholding the evaluation records of those employees whose actions did not result in suspension or termination. I agree with the custodian’s decision to withhold the records for employees who were neither suspended nor terminated. With respect to those employees who were suspended or terminated, it is my opinion that the custodian’s decision to release those records is consistent with the FOIA, provided that the remaining prongs of the four-part test for release of evaluation records have been satisfied. When redacting public records, custodians must fully obscure all redactable material while indicating that a redaction has been made. In the records provided, the custodian has only marked where redactions are intended; therefore, I cannot determine whether the proposed redactions comply with the FOIA. As custodian, the custodian must ensure all redactions comply with the statute when made. Finally, the basis for some of the custodian’s proposed redactions is unclear. Under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(a)(3)(B), if responsive records are subject to exemptions, the custodian must identify the applicable exemptions. To the extent the custodian asserts that certain information is not responsive to the FOIA requests, determining which records are responsive falls outside the scope of my statutory review under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i).
Question: Is the custodian's decision to withhold in-car video, accident photographs, and certain related records as employee-evaluation or job-performance records consistent with the FOIA?
Brief Response: The custodian’s decision to withhold the requested in-car video, accident photographs, and related records concerning the video’s download, storage, retention, or destruction as employee-evaluation or job-performance records is likely inconsistent with the FOIA. It is unclear if the Accident Review Board referral for Report 2016-002716 and any records linking that report to IAPro file VA2016-00004 were created by or at the behest of LRPD for the purpose of evaluating an employee’s performance, but if so, the custodian’s decision to withhold those records may be consistent with the FOIA.
English
French
Spanish
Vietnamese
