ELECTRONICALLY FILED

Pulaski County Circuit Court

Terri Hollingsworth, Circuit/County Clerk
2023-Sep-29 17:51:22
60CV-23-7467
C06D04 : 6 Pages

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS

_________ DIVISION

MATTHEW CAMPBELL PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 60CV-23-___________

ARKANSAS STATE POLICE DEFENDANTS

COL. MIKE HAGAR, in his Official Capacity

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER OR,

ALTERNATIVELY, MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUCTION,
WITH INCORPORATED BRIEF IN SUPPORT

COMES NOW the plaintiff, pro se, and, for his Motion for Temporary Restraining Order

or, Alternatively, Motion for Preliminary Injunction, with Incorporated Brief in Support, he states:

1. Plaintiff incorporates by reference herein his Appeal from Denial of Rights under the

AFOIA pertaining to the failure of the Arkansas State Police (“ASP”) and Col. Mike Hagar

(“Hagar”) (collectively, “defendants”) to provide plaintiff with public records that plaintiff

requested and was legally entitled to receive under the Arkansas Freedom of Information

Act (“AFOIA”).

2. Subsequent to plaintiff’s submission of his requests for public records and subsequent to

plaintiff’s filing of his original action,1 Gov. Sarah Sanders called a special session of the

1
Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the original action in this matter pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 41. Said
dismissal was without prejudice to refiling, and plaintiff has refiled that action concurrently with
the filing of this motion.
Campbell v. ASP – Mot. Injunct.
Page 1 of 6
 state legislature, specifically seeking to change the AFOIA so that the ASP records that

plaintiff had requested would be exempt from disclosure.

3. During the special session, the legislature passed Senate Bill 10, now Act 7, which purports

to exempt ASP records related to the Governor and other constitutional officers. Act 7

passed the Arkansas Senate with 29 yeas, 2 nays, 1 present, and 3 excused, with no

additional vote taken on the emergency clause therein. Act 7 passed the Arkansas House

with 82 yeas, 15 nays, and 3 not voting, with no additional vote taken on the emergency

clause therein.

4. The content, procedural requirements, and effects of attaching an emergency caluse to a

piece of legislation is governed by Article 5, section 1, of the Arkansas Constitution, which

requires that the vote on the emergency clause be done through a “separate roll call” vote.

Indeed, the current Arkansas House of Representatives Procedure Manual clearly states

that a separate roll-call vote, receiving a 2/3 majority, is required for the passage of an

emergency clause. See House Legislative Procedure Manual, available at

http://www.ArkansasHouse.org (last visited Sept. 29, 2023).

5. The Arkansas Legislature cannot create policy positions, laws, or internal rules that are

contrary to the Arkansas Constitution. See Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of Arkansas v. Andrews,

2018 Ark. 12 (holding that the general assembly cannot waive constitutionally granted

sovereign immunity in laws that they enact).

6. Act 7 is not yet operative law in the State of Arkansas, as the legislature failed to hold a

second, separate vote on Act 7’s emergency clause, despite earlier rulings from this very

Court holding that the failure to vote on an emergency clause separately from the vote on

Campbell v. ASP – Mot. Injunct.

Page 2 of 6
 the bill itself violates the Arkansas Constitution and renders the emergency clause null and

void. See Jackson v. Ark. Dep’t of Ed., 60CV-23-3267, Findings of Fact & Conclusions of

Law (entered of record on June 30, 2023) (holding that an emergency clause that did not

have a separate vote was not “constitutionally enacted”).

7. Section 6 of Act 7, entitled simply “Emergency Clause,” was not passed by a separate roll-

call vote garnering a two-thirds majority, as is required by Article 1, section 5, of the

Constitution of the State of Arkansas.

8. In order for enacted legislation to become immediately effective, the Arkansas Constitution

requires that “such necessity shall be stated in one section, and if upon a yea and nay vote

two-thirds of all the members elected to each house…shall vote upon separate roll call in

favor of the measure going into immediate operation, such emergency measure shall

become effective without delay.” Without such an emergency clause to the contrary, and

without a specified later date, the default effective date of ordinary legislation is 90 days

after the Legislature adjourns sine die.

9. Where a legislative session of the General Assembly ends sine die—as happened here on

September 14, 2023, upon the adjournment of the special session—the effective date of any

otherwise properly enacted legislation would be ninety (90) days from the date of the

adjournment sine die of the General Assembly. Without the emergency clause, the effective

date of the legislation would default to that date—December 13, 2023.

10. Since the passage of Act 7, Defendant ASP has repeatedly refused to provide records to

plaintiff and others, citing to the exemption in Act 7 as justification. Journalists and citizens

Campbell v. ASP – Mot. Injunct.

Page 3 of 6
 alike have been denied records to which they have a legal right based solely on defendants’

reliance on Act 7 and defendants’ position that Act 7 is already the law of the land.

11. But for the immediate issuance of a temporary restraining order or injunction, preventing

defendants from denying AFOIA requests for records based on any application of Act 7,

plaintiff will suffer the following immediate, irreparable harm or damage:

a. Plaintiff will continue not to receive the requested records, some of which were

requested over three months ago, despite having a clear, inarguable right to receive

those records and despite those records’ not being exempt from disclosure at the

time plaintiff’s requests were made;

b. Because plaintiff’s underlying action is an AFOIA lawsuit against a state agency, by

law plaintiff cannot receive attorneys’ fees and costs after he wins that lawsuit, and

damages are not otherwise recoverable against the state in this kind of proceeding,

meaning that there is no scenario where the delay in plaintiff’s receipt of records

that he is legal entitled to received could be remedied after the fact by monetary

compensation;

c. Plaintiff has additional requests to make to defendants for production of public

records related to ASP expenditures, and allowing defendants to continue to rely on

Act 7 will prevent plaintiff from being able to receive those records, will infringe on

plaintiff’s rights under Arkansas law, and cannot be remedied at a later date, as these

records will be unavailable to plaintiff or anyone else once Act 7 takes effect in

December, leaving plaintiff and others only a small window of time in which to

request records and know whether they will need to sue ASP to obtain the records;

Campbell v. ASP – Mot. Injunct.

Page 4 of 6
 d. Defendants have admitted, through sworn testimony by Defendant Hagar to the

Arkansas General Assembly, that the records that plaintiff requested, which make

up the underlying AFOIA lawsuit, were not exempt under Ark. Code Ann. § 12-8-

108 at the time that plaintiff requested them, meaning that defendants have already

violated plaintiff’s rights under the AFOIA, have admitted to such violations, and

continue to violate plaintiff’s rights by refusing to provide the records now based on

their incorrect belief that Act 7 has already taken effect.

12. For the reasons stated herein, plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm and damage to his ability

to obtain public records that he is legally entitled to receive as long as the defendants are

allowed to continue pretending like Act 7 is in effect and prohibits the release of the

requested records.

13. Based on the foregoing, plaintiff requests that the Court immediately issue a temporary

restraining order, barring the defendants from applying Act 7 to AFOIA requests received

prior to December 12, 2023, and ordering the defendants to comply with the requirements

of the AFOIA without any reliance on, or consideration of, Act 7, until such time that Act

7 takes effect.

14. Alternatively, plaintiff requests that this Court set a hearing on this motion and issue a

preliminary injunction at the earliest possible date.

WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, plaintiff requests that the Court grant his Motion

for Temporary Restraining Order or, alternatively, his Motion for Preliminary Injunction; grant

plaintiff’s request for relief under Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-107; and grant plaintiff any other relief

to which he may be entitled.

Campbell v. ASP – Mot. Injunct.

Page 5 of 6
 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]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Matthew D. Campbell, hereby certify that a true-and-correct copy of the foregoing will

be served on all necessary persons as of the date of filing by the Clerk of this Court. A courtesy

copy of the same, along with a courtesy copy of other documents filed this date, has been provided

via email on this 29th day of September, 2023, to the following persons:

Col. Mike Hagar

Joan Shipley, Chief Counsel for ASP

/s/ Matthew D. Campbell

Campbell v. ASP – Mot. Injunct.

Page 6 of 6