Thomas v. Hall, 11-1199
Citation | 2012 Ark. 4 |
Decision Date | 11 January 2012 |
Docket Number | No. 11-1199,11-1199 |
Parties | STUART THOMAS APPELLANT v. KEITH HALL APPELLEE |
Court | Supreme Court of Arkansas |
MOTION FOR ORDER OF PROTECTION
MOTION TO SEAL GRANTED.
Petitioner Stuart Thomas, who is the Chief of Police for the City of Little Rock, moves this court to grant a protective order to place certain documents under seal. Respondent Keith Hall opposes the motion on the basis that a protective order would modify free and full access to the record. We treat Thomas's motion for a protective order as a motion to partially seal the record and briefs. We grant his motion with respect to the following four documents, pending resolution of the appeal:
The documents at issue consist of four records from the Little Rock Police Department, referred to as "use of force records," which were reviewed in camera by the circuit court. All of the records relate to a single police officer, Lt. David Hudson. Hall requested release of the documents under the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), codified at Arkansas Code Annotated section 25-19-101 to -110 (Repl. 2002 & Supp. 2011). Thomas contends that these four documents constitute job evaluation or employee performance records and are not subject to disclosure under the FOIA. Hall contends that these reports are not employee evaluation or performance records but are, instead, narrative reports created by the officer to document the circumstances surrounding an incident when force is used.
On December 2, 2011, this court stayed a circuit court order requiring Thomas to release these four documents to Hall. In addition, this court expedited Thomas's appeal of the circuit court ruling. The inherent authority of this court to seal a part of court files is tempered by the requirements that a request for sealing part of a file must be particularized, there must be some good cause for sealing part of a file, and the sealing should be in effect for only so long as is necessary to protect the specified interest. See Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Hardy, 316...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Strain v. State, CR 10–888.
-
Springs v. State
...of a fair trial. Id. A petitioner making an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim must show that his counsel's performance fell below [2012 Ark. 4]an objective standard of reasonableness. Abernathy v. State, 2012 Ark. 59, 386 S.W.3d 477 (per curiam). The petitioner must show there is a re......
- Troeskyn v. Herrington (In re S.H.)
- Yanmar Co. v. Slater