IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS

_________ DIVISION

MATTHEW CAMPBELL PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 60CV-23-___________

ARKANSAS STATE POLICE DEFENDANT

APPEAL FROM DENIAL OF RIGHTS UNDER

THE ARKANSAS FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

This case is an original action filed pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-107 from a denial

of the rights guaranteed under the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (“AFOIA”).

a. Parties, Jurisdiction, & Venue

1. Plaintiff Matthew Campbell is an adult citizen of the state of Arkansas, a resident of

Pulaski County, and an attorney in good standing with the Bar of the State of Arkansas,

and he brings this action as a matter of right under Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-107, as he

requested specific public records from the Arkansas State Police, and the defendant

both actively and constructively denied the plaintiff’s requests and refused to provide

the records despite having no valid basis on which to do so.

2. Defendant Arkansas State Police is a division of the Arkansas Department of Public

Safety, supported in whole or in part with public funds, and is tasked with providing

certain public records (as that phrase is defined in the AFOIA) upon request from an

Arkansas resident, subject only to the express exclusions contained in the law.

Campbell v. ASP
Page 1 of 18
3. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-

107(a), as Pulaski County is the specified jurisdiction and venue for AFOIA suits

brought against the State of Arkansas or one of its departments.

b. Relevant Legal Standards

4. As is relevant here, under the AFOIA, “public records” means “writings, […]

electronic or computer-based information, or data compilations in any medium required

by law to be kept or otherwise kept and that constitute a record of the performance or

lack of performance of official functions that are or should be carried out by a public

official or employee [or] a governmental agency…that is wholly or partially supported

by public funds or expending public funds.” Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-103(7)(A).

5. Importantly, “All records maintained in public offices or by public employees within the

scope of their employment shall be presumed to be public records.” Id.

6. Our Attorney General has opined that a blanket decision to deny access to certain

records, without considering whether any parts of that record might not be exempt, is

impermissible under the AFOIA. See Ark. Op. Att’y Gen. No. 97-286.

7. For over fifty years, it has been a well-settled truth that he AFOIA was “passed wholly

in the public interest and is to be interpreted liberally.” Laman v. McCord, 245 Ark. 401,

405, 432 S.W.2d 753, 755 (1968).

8. That liberal interpretation means, when an exemption excludes a specific set of records

from disclosure, courts will not read additional exclusions into that exemption to reach

other, unlisted records. In other words, “the objectives of the FOIA are such that

whenever the legislature fails to specify that any records in the public domain are to be

Campbell v. ASP
Page 2 of 18
 excluded from inspection, or is less than clear in its intendments, then privacy must

yield to openness and secrecy to the public’s right to know the status of its own affairs.”

Ragland v. Yeargan, 288 Ark. 81, 85, 702 S.W.2d 23, 25 (1986) (holding that AFOIA

exemption of personal tax returns from disclosure did not exclude corporate tax returns

from disclosure); see also Troutt Brothers, Inc. v. Emison, 311 Ark. 27, 841 S.W.2d 604

(1992) (holding that statute providing for confidentiality in juvenile-court proceedings

did not apply to juvenile arrest records when no charges had been filed).

9. Furthermore, even the express AFOIA exemptions are to be narrowly construed. See

Hengel v. City of Pine Bluff, 307 Ark. 457, 821 S.W.2d 761 (1991); see also Young v. Rice,

308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992) (holding that AFOIA exemptions are to be

narrowly construed “in a manner that favors disclosure”).

10. Because there is a presumption in favor of disclosure, an entity or custodian claiming

an exemption under the AFOIA must carry the burden of establishing that the

exemption applies and justifying the nondisclosure of information. See, e.g., Orsini v.

State, 340 Ark. 665, 13 S.W.3d 167 (2000).

11. Importantly, “the courts are not free to fashion common-law exceptions to the FOIA.”

John Watkins, et al., “The Arkansas Freedom of Information Act” (5th ed.), at 109.

12. Regarding statutory exemptions, the Arkansas General Assembly amended the AFOIA

in 2009 to provide that “beginning on July 1, 2009, in order to be effective, a law that

enacts a new exemption to the requirements of this chapter or that substantially amends

an existing exemption to the requirements of this chapter shall state that the record or

Campbell v. ASP
Page 3 of 18
 meeting is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.” Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-

105(a).

13. In 2017, the Arkansas General Assembly amended Ark. Code Ann. § 18-8-108 to

explicitly exempt from AFOIA disclosure security-related records “concerning the

Governor’s Mansion and mansion grounds.” Ark. Code Ann. § 18-8-108(c); see also The

Arkansas Freedom of Information Handbook (20th ed.), at 48 (noting that Ark. Code

Ann. § 12-8-108(c) exempts only “security and emergency information concerning the

Governor’s Mansion and mansion grounds”).

14. The Arkansas State Police Air Support Unit’s Operations Manual states, “The Air

Support Unit Commander should process flight request forms, maintain flight

information databases, and produce flight activities reports. These reports are used to

provide the chain of command information pertaining to the operation and utilization

of the department’s aviation assets and to provide information to the public requested under

the Freedom of Information Act. See, e.g., Ark. State Police Air Support Unit Operations

Manual (promulgated Sept. 18, 2017), at § 3.203 (emphasis added).

15. The Arkansas State Police General Operations Policy Manual states

E-mail messages that meet the criteria of the definition of a

record may be considered public records and must be
available to the public. A record must meet the definition of
a public records as defined in the Arkansas Freedom of
Information Act. As with any format, an e-mail message may
be considered a public record, unless it falls under one of the
exceptions listed in Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b). All
public records must be maintained through the appropriate
retention period and be made accessible to the public upon
request.

Ark. State Police. Gen. Operations Policy Manual (effective July 14, 2008), at 4.

Campbell v. ASP
Page 4 of 18
16. That manual continues, “All agency email is subject to the Arkansas Freedom of

Information Act.” Id., at 6.

c. Facts

17. On June 23, 2023, plaintiff requested the following public records from the Arkansas

State Police:

a. All communications regarding ASP security for Bryan C. Sanders;

b. All documents regarding expenditures and costs associated with ASP security

for Bryan C. Sanders;

c. All communications regarding ASP security for Sarah H. Sanders;

d. All documents regarding expenditures and costs associated with ASP security

for Sarah H. Sanders.

18. On June 28, ASP attorney Jesi Feld responded to the June 23 request, writing

We cannot release the information you requested. After

careful review, the documents you requested are exempt
under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(6), A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(7),
A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12), A.C.A. § 12-8-108, and would
unconstitutionally violate the safety and security of the
Governor, her family, and the protective detail.

19. On August 7, plaintiff responded to Ms. Feld, explaining in detail that her citation to

Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(7) was irrelevant because plaintiff was requesting

records from and in the possession of the State Police, which would make a reference to

the Governor’s working-papers exemption meaningless. Plaintiff further explained that

Ms. Feld’s reliance on Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(12) was similarly without merit

because communications between the ASP and the Governor’s Office are not remotely

Campbell v. ASP
Page 5 of 18
 “personnel records” that would “constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal

privacy” under the AFOIA. Finally, plaintiff pointed out that Ark. Code Ann. § 12-8-

108 is almost entirely irrelevant because the only AFOIA exemption in that statute

regards records related to the security of the Governor’s Mansion. (Plaintiff did note,

“I am asking for communications between ASP and the Governor’s Office and payroll

records and records of other security expenditures. To the extent there might be a

record or communication about the governor’s mansion or the mansion grounds, those

records would be exempt. But no other records would be exempt under 12-8-108.”)

20. On August 9, Ms. Feld responded with a second attempt at justifying the improper

denial of plaintiff’s AFOIA request. In that response, Feld contended that the

“information requested would violate the [ASP’s] statutory obligation to ensure the

safety and security of the Governor” and that plaintiff’s request “also

unconstitutionally violates the safety and security of the Governor, her family, and the

protective detail.” According, ASP produced no additional records.

21. On August 14, plaintiff requested the following public records from the ASP:

a. All flight logs for any plane owned or operated by the ASP from 1/1/23 to

present;

b. All receipts, invoices, or similar documents related to any travel on ASP planes

from 1/1/23 to present;

c. All travel reimbursements for anyone flying on an ASP plane from 1/1/23 to

present;

d. All communications regarding ASP airplanes from 1/1/23 to present; and

Campbell v. ASP
Page 6 of 18
 e. All flight manifests and passenger lists for any flights on ASP planes from 1/1/23

to present.

22. On August 16, Ms. Feld responded with partial production, sending plaintiff invoices

from private pilots hired by ASP to fly ASP planes both for the Governor and otherwise,

as well as fuel-purchase logs for the ASP planes. Ms. Feld also said that she would be

producing the requested communications soon, once she had an estimate from the

Department of Information Services on how long it would take to locate and provide

the relevant emails.

23. On August 21, plaintiff requested the following records from ASP:

a. All records related to any ASP expenditures incurred in sending any ASP

personnel to Europe in 2023;

b. All records related to any reimbursements made to ASP personnel for expenses

incurred while in or traveling to Europe in 2023;

c. All documentation regarding airline tickets and hotel rooms purchased as part

of ASP personnel travel to or from Europe in 2023.

24. When Ms. Feld contacted plaintiff on August 23 re: both confirmation of receipt of the

August 21 request as well as an update on the emails responsive to plaintiff’s August 14

request, plaintiff offered to let Ms. Feld focus on the more recent request for European

travel records and to provide the emails later once she was not so busy.

25. On August 29, ASP Chief Counsel Joan Shipley contacted the plaintiff via email

regarding his August 21 request. In her email, Shipley wrote, “After a review of any

documents that might be responsive to your request below, we are denying your FOIA

Campbell v. ASP
Page 7 of 18
 request due to security concerns based on the [ASP’s] statutory obligation under ACA

12-8-108, as we did in an earlier request that you made which included this same

information.”

26. Shipley’s August 29 email included attachments for information related to plane usage

and fuel purchases, though she explicitly stated that they were not going to produce the

requested communications. However, the spreadsheet regarding plane usage had all

other passengers on Governor Sanders’ flights redacted, despite no statutory exemption

for that information.

27. On August 30, plaintiff made one final attempt to prevent the need for a lawsuit in this

matter. In that email, plaintiff provided Ms. Shipley with a detailed explanation for why

her legal position was untenable at best and why the law in this matter was on plaintiff’s

side, giving the ASP until the close of business on August 31 to provide the remaining

requested records or plaintiff would file suit.

28. On September 1, at 6:12PM, Ms. Shipley sent plaintiff an email with a 210-page

attachment purporting to be the responsive email records that plaintiff had requested.

However, these emails contained multiple illegal redactions of the names of other

passengers who flew on ASP planes with the Governor. Despite having no valid legal

basis for these redactions, Ms. Shipley attempted to justify the same by reference to

Ark. Code Ann. § 12-8-108, Ark. Code Ann. 25-18-105(b)(13), and Arkansas Attorney

General Opinion No. 01-080.

29. As of the date of the filing of this lawsuit, ASP has still not produced the following

records with proper, legally supported redactions where applicable:

Campbell v. ASP
Page 8 of 18
 a. All communications regarding ASP security for Bryan C. Sanders, requested

June 23, 2023;

b. All documents regarding expenditures and costs associated with ASP security

for Bryan C. Sanders, requested June 23, 2023;

c. All communications regarding ASP security for Sarah H. Sanders, requested

June 23, 2023;

d. All documents regarding expenditures and costs associated with ASP security

for Sarah H. Sanders, requested June 23, 2023

e. All flight logs for any plane owned or operated by the ASP from 1/1/23 to

present, requested August 14, 2023;

f. All communications regarding ASP airplanes from 1/1/23 to present;

g. All flight manifests and passenger lists for any flights on ASP planes from 1/1/23

to present;

h. All records related to any ASP expenditures incurred in sending any ASP

personnel to Europe in 2023;

i. All records related to any reimbursements made to ASP personnel for expenses

incurred while in or traveling to Europe in 2023;

j. All documentation regarding airline tickets and hotel rooms purchased as part

of ASP personnel travel to or from Europe in 2023.

30. All of the records listed above are public records, subject to disclosure under the

AFOIA, and redactions done to any of those records prior to production must be limited

only to what is specifically exempted by statute.

Campbell v. ASP
Page 9 of 18
 d. Analysis: ASP’s Violation of AFOIA

31. Under the AFOIA, plaintiff was entitled to receive electronic copies of the various

public records that he requested. See Pulaski Co. Special Sch. Dist. v. Delaney, 2019 Ark.

App. 210 (holding that the requesting party dictates the format and manner of receipt

of the requested records); see generally Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105.

32. The ASP’s repeated reliance on Ark. Code Ann. § 12-8-108 either demonstrates an

ignorance of the AFOIA and exemptions generally or is a prime example of the ASP’s

lack of any relevant, apposite authority on which they can rely to shield these records

regarding the Governor’s travel from the public.

33. As noted above, Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-110 mandates that any exemption to the

AFOIA that takes effect after July 1, 2009, “shall state that the record…is exempt from

the Freedom of Information Act of 1967.” Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-110(a). Section 12-

8-108 was amended by Act 483 of 2017 to exclude security records related to the

Governor’s Mansion and mansion grounds, and that exemption explicitly referenced

the exemption from the AFOIA as required under Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-110(a).

34. Under the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, “the express designation of one

thing may properly be construed to mean the exclusion of another.” Buonauito v. Gibson,

2020 Ark. 352, 609 S.W.3d 381 (holding that the use of “four-lane highway” in the

language of Amendment 91 meant that the money could not be used for six-lane

highways). Here, because the legislature amended section 12-8-108 to exempt security

records related to the Governor’s mansion and mansion grounds, that statute may

properly be read as explicitly not excluding records related to ASP communications

Campbell v. ASP
Page 10 of 18
 about the Governor, ASP expenditures for security of the Governor and her husband

except to the extent those records relate to the mansion, passenger lists of persons who

flew on ASP planes with the Governor, or ASP expenditures for its own staff to go to

Europe (which is so far outside the conceivable bounds of a sane reading of section 12-

8-108 that it is absurd for ASP to pretend otherwise).

35. Likewise, Ms. Feld’s June 28 citations to Ark. Code Ann. §§ 25-19-105(b)(6, (b)(7), and

(b)(12) are irrelevant. Subsection 105(b)(6) applies only to “undisclosed investigations

by law enforcement agencies of suspected criminal activity.” Unless Ms. Feld is

suggesting that the ASP is looking into whether it is criminal for the Governor to have

security or for the ASP to spend money on providing security to the Governor, it is

difficult to overstate how irrelevant this exemption is to the facts at hand.

36. Section 25-19-105(b)(7) is the “working papers” exemption. However, that exemption

may only be claimed by the Governor’s Office or one of the other enumerated offices in

that subsection. As Professor John Watkins explained in his treatise on the AFOIA,

“The Attorney General has opined that subsection (b)(7) does not reach

‘correspondence in the hands of other officials not mentioned in this subsection.’”

Watkins, at 152 (quoting Ark. Op. Att’y Gen. No. 93-166). Simply put, the ASP cannot

claim the Governor’s working-papers exemption under Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-

105(b)(7) simply because the emails in question are in the possession and administrative

control of the ASP, and the working-papers exemption applies solely to the offices

referenced in Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(7), which does not include ASP.

Campbell v. ASP
Page 11 of 18
37. Similarly, Ms. Feld’s June 28 reference section 25-19-105(b)(12) is largely without

merit. The records requested in that instance—communications regarding security for

the Governor and Mr. Sanders as well as expenditures made by ASP as part of that

security—are, by and large, not the type that would be “personnel records” as that term

is used in the AFOIA. However, even if we pretend like those are personnel records for

the sake of argument here, Ms. Feld’s reliance on that statute still demonstrates little

more than a complete unfamiliarity with the law. Under Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-

105(b)(12), records that do not pertain to individual employees, but rather reference

employees as a group, are not covered by this exemption. See Ark. Op. Att’y Gen. No.

96-258. Moreover, personnel records are only exempt from disclosure “to the extent

that disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”

Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(12). Because they are only exempt to that extent, “a

blanket denial of access is impermissible.” Watkins, at 191. Even “the fact that the

employee might consider release of the information invasive of his personal privacy is

not relevant” to whether the records should be released. See Watkins, at 191. Rather,

the courts have created a two-pronged test: (1) is the information so personal or intimate

in nature sufficient to give rise to a substantial privacy interest; and (2) if so, does the

public’s interest in disclosure outweigh that privacy interest? See Young, 308 Ark. 593,

826 S.W.2d 252. ASP’s response fails both prongs.

38. Neither what ASP and the Governor’s Office communicate to one another about

security details, nor the expenditures incurred by ASP in providing a security detail are

pieces of information that are so personal or intimate that they give rise to a substantial

Campbell v. ASP
Page 12 of 18
 privacy interest. Rather, these are government officials discussing work performed at

public expense by other public employees. Nothing in there is remotely “intimate” such

that there is a personal privacy interest. Additionally, even if there was some privacy

interest—which there is not—it would surely be outweighed by the public’s right to

know how much the Governor and her husband’s use of ASP personnel and equipment

is costing the taxpayers. As the Arkansas Supreme Court explained nearly sixty years

ago, “It is indeed difficult to envision a greater interest in public records which reflect

the handling of public funds than that of a citizen and taxpayer whose own contribution

to the public funds is directly involved. His is a real interest. It is such that, in the

absence of some compelling reason to the contrary, he should be entitled to inspect the

records pertaining thereto.” Republican Party of Arkansas v. State ex rel. Hall, 240 Ark.

545, 400 S.W.2d 660 (1966).

39. Ms. Feld’s other contention on June 28, that releasing the records would

“unconstitutionally violate the safety and security of the Governor, her family, and the

protective detail” is also without merit. There is no constitutional right to security for

“the Governor, her family, and the protective detail” beyond the constitutional rights

shared by all Arkansans. This is likely why Ms. Feld did not cite to an actual

constitutional provision in support of this position. Regardless, the only right of the

Governor and her family to security from the ASP is found in Ark. Code Ann. § 12-8-

108, which, as already shown, has no bearing on the release of the records at issue here.

40. Despite the fact that none of the citations in Ms. Feld’s June 28 email were relevant or

applicable, she somehow managed to do even worse in her August 9 response, in which

Campbell v. ASP
Page 13 of 18
 she claimed that releasing “the information requested would violate the [ASP’s]

statutory obligation to ensure the safety and security of the Governor” and that

plaintiff’s request “also unconstitutionally violates the safety and security of the

Governor, her family, and the protective detail.”

41. Regarding the claim that releasing the information would violate ASP’s statutory duty,

that is patently absurd. The only violation here of a statutory duty is ASP’s continuing

refusal to provide records that are subject to release under the AFOIA. The “statutory

duty” in section 12-8-108 does not exempt the requested records, and merely saying

“statutory duty” over and over does not allow ASP to add exemptions to that statute.

A “statutory obligation to ensure the safety” of anyone is not, without an express

AFOIA exemption, sufficient to withhold a request for records of communications and

expenditures, even if those records touch on the statutorily obligated security.

Moreover, claiming that plaintiff’s request “unconstitutionally violates” literally

anything is absolutely ridiculous on its face and stands as an example of how uninformed

the ASP staff are regarding the AFOIA if that is truly a position that any of them would

take with a straight face.

42. Not that Ms. Shipley’s excuses for ASP’s non-performance are any better, of course.

Her reliance on Ark. Code Ann. § 12-8-108 is just as off-base and silly as Ms. Feld’s.

Indeed, considering that Ms. Shipley is chief legal counsel for ASP, her reliance on a

statute that, by its own terms, has nothing to do with the requested records might

actually be more egregious than Ms. Feld’s. Yet, despite that statute’s inapplicability, it

is the only citation to any authority that Ms. Shipley even attempted. Other than 12-8-108,

Campbell v. ASP
Page 14 of 18
 Ms. Shipley’s communications regarding the requested records speak only of that

statute and a general belief that somehow ASP is above the AFOIA merely by claiming

some amorphous “safety” or “security” and pointing at a statute that it appears none

of them has read.

43. It is inarguable that ASP is the custodian of the records that plaintiff requested, and they

do not contend otherwise. As the custodian and the entity claiming that the requested

records are exempt under the AFOIA, ASP bears the burden of establishing that there

is in fact an exemption under the AFOIA that applies to these records. See Orsini, 340

Ark. 665, 13 S.W.3d 167.

44. Where, as here, the custodian fails to show anything even resembling an exemption that

would preclude production of the requested records, the nonproduction of those

records is in violation of the AFOIA.

45. Plaintiff tried multiple times to explain to Ms. Feld and Ms. Shipley, both of whom seem

confused about the AFOIA and ASP’s actual statutory duties thereunder, why their

response was in violation of the law. Both of them refused to acknowledge that their

position was baseless, resulting in this suit.

46. More importantly, ASP’s own reliance on an undefined “security” exemption to the

AFOIA is belied by the records that they have produced. While the Excel spreadsheet

of the flights taken on ASP planes has the other travelers with Governor Sanders

redacted, it still shows when Governor Sanders used the plane. And, while the emails

provided improperly redact the other parties traveling on Governor Sanders’ numerous

flights in the ASP plane, they still show when Governor Sanders’ staff reserved the

Campbell v. ASP
Page 15 of 18
 plane, what dates were planned, when those dates changed, the take-off and landing

location of the plane, and all other information regarding the flight. Absolutely no one

could argue in good faith that knowing all of the details of the governor’s flight, down

to the tail number of the plane and the time of departure, was not a violation of the

“statutory duty” to provide security for the Governor and her family, but merely

knowing who else was on a flight that already occurred would be some huge security

issue that precludes releasing that information. Indeed, it would also be better—at least

from an honesty perspective—if ASP denied the request simply because someone told

them not to release who the Governor was traveling with. It still would not be a valid

AFOIA exemption, but at least it would not be illogical.

47. The same analysis applies to the denial of plaintiff’s June 23 request for

communications about security details and expenditures by ASP. Except to whatever

extent those records refer to security at the Governor’s Mansion or on the mansion

grounds, those records are subject to disclosure under the AFOIA, and ASP has offered

nothing to suggest otherwise.

48. Finally, and most egregiously, ASP’s bizarre claim that “a constitutional duty” to

provide security prevents them from releasing records about ASP expenditures, for ASP

personnel, incurred in traveling to and from Europe as part of their official job duties, is

laughable. Or it would be, if blatantly disregarding transparency and hiding how many

thousands of dollars ASP spent to send troopers to England and France was funny.

49. It may very well be that ASP believes that their duty to provide security to the Governor

under Ark. Code Ann. 12-8-108 should necessarily include exemptions for records

Campbell v. ASP
Page 16 of 18
 related to all of the security provided. But what they believe and what the law actually

says are two different things, and whether certain records should be exempt from the

FOIA is a public-policy decision that must be made by the General Assembly and not

the courts. See Hopkins v. City of Brinkley, 2014 Ark. 139, 12, 432 S.W.3d 609, 617 (2014);

see also Harris v. City of Fort Smith, 359 Ark. 355, 365, 197 S.W.3d 461, 467 (2004).

50. Based on all of the foregoing, ASP has violated the AFOIA by refusing to provide public

records, including properly unredacted records in some cases, to plaintiff in response to

a valid AFOIA request.

e. Conclusion

51. James Madison once wrote, “A Popular Government, without popular information, or

the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both.”

Letter from James Madison to W.T. Barry (1865). One hundred years later, the Arkansas

Supreme Court echoed this sentiment, writing, “The denial to the public of reasonable

access to public records by public officials is not conducive to the perpetuation of our

form of government.” Gaspard v. Whorton, 239 Ark. 849, 394 S.W.2d 621 (1965). The

actions of the ASP here, in denying plaintiff access to records that are unquestionably

public records and which should absolutely be disclosed under the AFOIA, for what

appears to be little more than protecting the Governor’s desire not to have anyone know

what she is doing or who she is doing it with, is exactly the kind of action that “is not

conducive to the perpetuation of our form of government.”

52. As such, ASP’s position should be rejected out of hand, and plaintiff prays that this

Court will schedule a hearing within seven days as outlined in the AFOIA, will find that

Campbell v. ASP
Page 17 of 18
 ASP has violated the AFOIA, and will order ASP to provide the requested records

immediately and without any illegal redactions of passenger lists or any other

disclosable information.

53. Plaintiff does not waive the seven-day provision of Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-107(b), and

he asks this Court to set this matter for the first available hearing date in accordance

with the statute.

WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, the plaintiff prays that this Court will set a hearing

within seven days, will find that the Arkansas State Police improperly violated the AFOIA by failing

to provide public records on request, will order the ASP to provide the records immediately, and

will grant the plaintiff any other relief to which he may be entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Matthew D. Campbell

Ark. Bar No. 2009032
Pinnacle Law Firm, PLLC
104 Winnwood Rd.
Little Rock, AR 72207
(501) 396-9246
[email protected]

Campbell v. ASP
Page 18 of 18