# Arkansas FOIA Electronic Records and Vendor Custody Arkansas FOIA covers electronic public records, but the official 2025 handbook does **not** state an absolute entitlement to a requester's preferred “native format.” It restates Ark. Code § 25-19-105(d)(2)(B): a citizen may request a copy in a medium in which the record is readily available or a format to which it is readily convertible using the custodian's existing software; the custodian need not compile information or create a new record. (primary public record, [Arkansas Freedom of Information Act Handbook, 21st ed.](../../web%20archive/2026-07-20/healthy.arkansas.gov/arkansas-foia-handbook-21st-edition-2025.md), PDF p. 14) ## Vendor custody The same handbook, summarizing *Apprentice Information Systems, Inc. v. DataScout, LLC*, states that storing a public record with a private entity does not make the private entity independently subject to FOIA and does not eliminate the public entity's custodial responsibility: the public entity remains the custodian even without physical possession. This is a records-custody principle, not evidence that any particular vendor-held dataset is a public record; the record must still satisfy the Act's definition and not fall within an exemption. (primary public record, [Arkansas Freedom of Information Act Handbook, 21st ed.](../../web%20archive/2026-07-20/healthy.arkansas.gov/arkansas-foia-handbook-21st-edition-2025.md), PDF p. 24) ## Disclosure boundary The handbook says exemptions are narrowly construed and a record not squarely within an exemption must be disclosed, while also recognizing statutory confidentiality provisions and fact-specific balancing rules. It therefore supports careful record-by-record analysis, not a categorical conclusion that all audit logs, alerts, searches, sharing configurations, or vendor-hosted exports are either public or exempt. (primary public record, [Arkansas Freedom of Information Act Handbook, 21st ed.](../../web%20archive/2026-07-20/healthy.arkansas.gov/arkansas-foia-handbook-21st-edition-2025.md), PDF p. 32) ## How it appears in the corpus - Conway and LRPD records show agencies asking vendors to export, explain, or administer platform records. Those Tier-1 records establish agency/vendor conduct; the handbook supplies only the public-law context for identifying the custodian and framing a format request. - [[Vendor-Controlled ALPR Trial Data]] documents a different problem: Fayetteville's trial agreement assigned operational trial-data control to the vendor. The handbook does not by itself establish that data's public-record status or that responsive records still existed when requested. - [[The Disclosure-Posture Reversal at Conway PD]] concerns exemptions and segregability after records existed and had previously been produced; it is not resolved merely by asking for “native” copies. ## Notes - This page states evidence-analysis boundaries, not legal advice. - The dossier's broader “native format” proposition was narrowed during the 2026-07-20 source audit.