Pulaski County Records Dispute Raises Questions About Possible Cover-Up of LRPD’s 2023 Felony Records Destruction

 

FELONY TAMPERING WITH PUBLIC RECORDS PCSO COVER-UP INVESTIGATION

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. A lawsuit over public records held by the Pulaski County Sheriff’s Office has developed into a larger investigation of whether county officials withheld evidence concerning the Little Rock Police Department’s alleged destruction of public records in 2023.

The recent discovery of nearly 100 pages of previously unproduced Pulaski County Sheriff’s Office records is significant, but the number of pages isn’t the central issue. The discovery shows that responsive records connected to the investigation existed even though they weren’t initially provided. That failure raises questions about whether the Sheriff’s Office conducted an adequate search and whether the missing production kept information about the underlying LRPD matter from becoming public.

The dispute began with allegations that LRPD destroyed public records in 2023. Chief Elder Ean Lee Bordeaux submitted an Arkansas Freedom of Information Act request seeking records related to the matter. Pulaski County Sheriff’s Office Lieutenant Cardarious Walker later issued the same request to LRPD while examining the complaint.

According to Bordeaux, LRPD couldn’t produce the requested records in response to Walker’s request. LRPD also couldn’t provide documentation showing that the records had been destroyed according to an authorized retention schedule or other lawful process.

Bordeaux says a recorded conversation includes an LRPD acknowledgment that the records were missing or destroyed. Taken together, the recording, LRPD’s inability to produce the records, and the reported lack of documentation establishing lawful destruction formed the basis for an allegation of felony tampering with public records:

Walker’s reported findings are central to the developing dispute because Walker independently sought the same records from LRPD. Walker’s request wasn’t based only on Bordeaux’s account of what happened. It provided the Sheriff’s Office with a separate opportunity to determine whether the records existed, whether they had been destroyed, and whether LRPD could document the legal authority for their destruction.

According to Bordeaux, Walker’s inquiry confirmed the same problem: LRPD couldn’t produce the requested documents or proof that they had been lawfully destroyed.

The Sheriff’s Office therefore possessed information that could support further examination of LRPD’s conduct. The records documenting PCSO’s inquiry could show what Walker requested, how LRPD responded, what PCSO learned, which officials received that information, and what action was taken afterward.

Those are the records now at the center of the Pulaski County lawsuit.

Bordeaux filed Ean Lee Bordeaux v. Eric Higgins et al., Case No. 60CV-26-10583, in Pulaski County Circuit Court on 08/14/2026. Sheriff Eric Higgins and Pulaski County are named as defendants. The court docket shows that Bordeaux later filed a motion to supplement the petition to compel disclosure, a supplemental affidavit, and a supporting brief. A motion hearing was held on 08/20/2026, and a status hearing is scheduled for 09/21/2026. 

The discovery of nearly 100 additional pages during the litigation confirms that PCSO’s earlier production wasn’t complete. The pages aren’t important merely because they were missing. They’re important because they concern an investigation that could expose wrongdoing by LRPD while also revealing what PCSO knew and how PCSO responded.

That creates a serious conflict in the public account of the case. PCSO was supposed to examine evidence that another law enforcement agency may have illegally destroyed public records. PCSO then failed to produce nearly 100 pages of its own records connected to that examination.

The problem is no longer limited to LRPD’s handling of records in 2023. It now includes PCSO’s handling of records documenting what the Sheriff’s Office learned about LRPD.

If the newly located pages include communications, investigative notes, requests, responses, or internal discussions about Walker’s findings, their earlier absence may have prevented the public from learning how far the investigation went. The records could also show whether PCSO treated the matter as possible criminal conduct, referred it elsewhere, closed it without further action, or allowed it to remain unresolved.

The timing makes those questions more difficult to dismiss. The additional records weren’t produced during the original response. They were located after Bordeaux filed suit and placed the Sheriff’s Office’s search and production before a circuit judge.

A simple oversight remains one possible explanation. But an oversight involving nearly 100 pages requires a detailed account of where the records were stored, who conducted the original search, why that search failed, and what changed after litigation began. Without that explanation, the incomplete production supports Bordeaux’s allegation that records capable of implicating LRPD, PCSO, or both agencies were kept from public review.

Bordeaux has agreed to meet with the county attorney on Wednesday to arrange production of the records that remain outstanding. If the parties can’t resolve the dispute, Bordeaux says the case may be prepared for trial within 30 days.

A trial could require Walker to testify under oath about the request sent to LRPD, the documents LRPD failed to produce, and LRPD’s inability to provide proof of lawful destruction. Other county officials could also be questioned about the search for PCSO’s records, the nearly 100 pages that weren’t initially produced, and whether additional responsive material remains undisclosed.

The current lawsuit is a civil public records case. The court docket doesn’t list a criminal charge or offense. The allegation of felony tampering concerns the underlying conduct involving the 2023 LRPD records and hasn’t been established through a criminal judgment. The allegation that PCSO participated in a cover-up also remains disputed and will depend on the records, testimony, and findings developed through the case.

Still, the newly located pages provide concrete support for deeper scrutiny. They establish that PCSO possessed responsive material that wasn’t included in its earlier production. They also weaken any assumption that the Sheriff’s Office had already completed a full and reliable search.

The central issue is now whether PCSO merely failed to locate the records or whether the incomplete production helped shield LRPD from investigation while protecting county officials from questions about what they knew.

The nearly 100 pages aren’t the story by themselves. They’re evidence that the public hadn’t received the complete file.

The real story is whether the Pulaski County Sheriff’s Office investigated evidence of possible felony public-records tampering by LRPD or helped keep that evidence from seeing daylight.