In a case interpreting Arkansas's Freedom of Information Act, the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed Pulaski County Circuit Judge Mary McGowan's in camera FOIA review of emails sent between former Pulaski County Comptroller Ron Quillin and intervenor Jane Doe in Pulaski County v. Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Inc. Jane Doe was an employee of Government e-Management Solutions (GEMS), a company that had a services contract with the County. Doe and Quillin became "romantically involved" during the period of Quillin's embezzlement and the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette requested, under the State's FOIA law, copies of emails between Quillin and Doe. The Court held in July that a case-by-case in camera determination was necessary to determine whether each individual email was subject to FOIA. (The Court declined to rule that all of the emails were subject to FOIA because they were created on a County computer.)
The second case presented two issues: standing of Jane Doe to challenge the circuit judge's FOIA ruling, and her constitutional challenge that disclosure of the emails violated her right to privacy.
As to standing: according to the Court, the Democrat-Gazette advanced an interesting argument that Doe "has no standing under the Arkansas FOIA because she is a citizen of Missouri." Unfortunately, the opinion does not elaborate on the Democrat-Gazette's argument, and the Court's analysis is conclusory:
Only a claimant who has a personal stake in the outcome of a controversy has standing. Here, Doe is not attempting to gain access to public records; she is merely trying to block the disclosure of e-mails that she sent and received. Therefore, she has a personal stake in the outcome of this case. Thus, even though she is not a citizen of Arkansas, we hold that she has standing to assert a privacy interest.
(citations omitted).
The Court went on to hold that Doe waived her right to raise a privacy challenge to release of the emails because "the romantic relationship between Quillin and Doe was indistinguishably intertwined with the business relationship between the County and GEMS."
The Court also held that Doe waived her right to raise the issue:
[W]e note that the circuit court found that one particular email exchange between Quillin and Doe sent on March 12, 2006, beginning at 9:44 a.m., is evidence that Doe lost any expectation of privacy. The sexually explicit exchange concludes by Doe’s response: “Hey now. This is work email. goofball!” Quillin then responds at 9:58 a.m.: “Delete, delete, delete . . . .” This e-mail exchange proves that Doe knew the risk that the e-mails could become public, yet she continued to e-mail Quillin on the county’s computer, and therefore, lost any expectation of privacy.
