Owasso police won't identify officer being investigated for excessive force or release lapel camera video until query completed

Owasso officials say they won't identify a police officer accused of using excessive force or release lapel camera video of the incident until the investigation is completed, the Owasso Reporter said Thursday.

The 27-year-old suspect has been paid $1,500 to settle the June 30 incident, City Attorney Julie Lombardi confirmed for the newspaper.

The officer had been placed on paid leave during the investigation, Police Chief Dan Yancey told the newspaper.

A 2009 attorney general opinion permits public agencies to keep secret the names of employees placed on paid administrative leave if, under the agency’s personnel policies, that action doesn’t constitute "a 'final' or 'disciplinary' action, nor a 'final disciplinary action resulting in loss of pay, suspension, demotion, or termination.'" (2009 OK AG 33, ¶ 29)

But once the investigation is complete and a final disciplinary action occurs, "the record(s) indicating that action must be available for public inspection and copying," then-Attorney General Drew Edmondson said.

The Oklahoma Open Records Act makes public "any final disciplinary action resulting in loss of pay, suspension, demotion of position, or termination." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24.A(7))

Edmondson noted that the Open Records Act does not mention "administrative leave with pay."

That oversight should be rectified by state legislators next year.

In Owasso, the police department released the incident report, which identifies three officers as having been directly involved in arresting the 27-year-old suspect.

The Owasso Reporter argued that city officials had a responsibility to differentiate between officers under investigation and those who are not.

The newspaper said Yancy indicated that images of the use of force being investigated were captured on at least one of the department’s new lapel cameras that patrol officers wear.

A relative of the suspect complained to the newspaper about the circumstances under which the $1,500 settlement was reached.

Representatives for the city approached the suspect while he was locked up in the Tulsa County Jail on Oct. 9 in connection with a 2010 misdemeanor case that prosecutors are seeking to have a deferred sentence arrangement set aside and punishment imposed, the newspaper was told.

The suspect was without benefit of a lawyer when city officials offered him money to pay court costs and medical expenses in return for signing a release not to sue the city over excessive force used on June 30, the newspaper was told.


Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Media & Strategic Communications


The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the commentators and do not necessarily represent the position of FOI Oklahoma Inc., its staff, or its board of directors. Differing interpretations of open government law and policy are welcome.

Moore police won't identify people shot by officers, refuse to release incident reports

Moore police shot two people last week -- one fatally -- but the department won't release their names or the reports on the separate incidents, The Oklahoman reports this morning.

At this point, Moore police officials aren't telling the public much about the shootings. A 17-year-old was driving a stolen car a week ago when he tried to elude officers. He was shot in the stomach when he left the car and tried to run. The Oklahoman reports that police won't say if he threatened officers, if he was armed or why they shot him.

We also don't know much about the fatal shooting on Friday. Police got a call about a suicidal man, found him driving on Interstate 35, and chased him. He was shot when the pursuit ended. How did the pursuit end? Did he have a gun? Why did officers shoot him? Officials won't say.

Police Capt. Todd Strickland said the 17-year-old will never be identified by the department because he is a minor.

That policy and reasoning are unacceptable. We don't live in a society in which police may shoot somebody and keep the name secret simply because the person is under age 18. Instead, that should be even more reason for the name to be made public.

Strickland said the department won't release the name of the man fatally shot Friday because his relatives haven't been notified. More nonsensical reasoning from the Moore Police Department.

The Open Records Act doesn't require notification of relatives before police can identify a person shot and killed by officers. What if the man has no next-of-kin, or police can't find them? His identify just remains a secret? That's absurd.

Strickland also refused to identify the officers involved in the shootings. They've been placed on administrative leave while the shootings are investigated, Strickland said.

A public agency may keep secret the names of employees placed on paid administrative leave if, under the agency’s personnel policies, that action doesn’t constitute "a 'final' or 'disciplinary' action, nor a 'final disciplinary action resulting in loss of pay, suspension, demotion, or termination,'" Edmondson said in a 2009 opinion. (2009 OK AG 33, ¶ 29)

But once the investigation is complete and a final disciplinary action occurs, "the record(s) indicating that action must be available for public inspection and copying," he said.

Edmondson noted that the Open Records Act does not mention "administrative leave with pay." That oversight should be rectified by legislators next year.

In Moore, even if police officials determine that no disciplinary action should occur, the names of the officers should be made public as part of the incident reports -- which the department is refusing to release.

Strickland told the newspaper it's against department policy to release the incident reports.

That policy contradicts the state Open Records Act, which says the department "shall make available for public inspection ... A chronological list of all incidents, including initial offense report information showing the offense, date, time, general location, officer, and a brief summary of what occurred." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.8(A)(3))

Department policy doesn't get to trump the public's right to know. Or, particularly in this case, the need to know. (2006 OK AG 35, ¶ 29)

Yes, the public needs to know what happened. Being open in these situations also benefits the Moore Police Department. Being secretive to the point of violating state law sends the message that the department has something to hide. That undermines public trust in the department. It's also unfair to the officers involved.


Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Media & Strategic Communications


The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the commentators and do not necessarily represent the position of FOI Oklahoma Inc., its staff, or its board of directors. Differing interpretations of open government law and policy are welcome.

Enid officials won't identify two police officers placed on administrative leave because of homicide investigation

Enid officials won't tell the public which two police officers are under investigation because of how a homicide investigation was handled, the Enid News & Eagle and The Oklahoman reported this week.

The two officers are on paid administrative leave, the newspapers reported.

The News & Eagle noted that the public statement it received from police officials said the officers were “suspended with pay.”

The public might never know the names of the officers.

A recent attorney general opinion said a public agency may keep secret the names of employees placed on paid administrative leave if, under the agency’s personnel policies, that action doesn’t constitute “a ‘final’ or ‘disciplinary’ action, nor a ‘final disciplinary action resulting in loss of pay, suspension, demotion, or termination.’” (2009 OK AG 33)

The opinion came about after Oklahoma City officials refused to identify an employee placed on paid administrative leave during an investigation into the possible misuse of a federal grant.

Attorney General Drew Edmondson said once the investigation is complete and a final disciplinary action occurs, “the record(s) indicating that action must be must be available for public inspection and copying."

The Oklahoma Open Records Act makes public "any final disciplinary action resulting in loss of pay, suspension, demotion of position, or termination." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24.A(7))

It permits, but does not require, public bodies to keep confidential the personnel records related to "internal personnel investigations including examination and selection material for employment, hiring, appointment, promotion, demotion, discipline, or resignation."

Enid police Capt. Jack Morris told The Oklahoman, "There is no disciplinary action taking place, and this is normal protocol.”

The News & Eagle reported that Enid City Attorney Andrea Chism disavowed any connection to the press release and called the use of the word suspension unfortunate.

According to both newspapers, the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation will conduct a criminal investigation into the officers' actions. An administrative investigation by the police department would follow.

“I’m not releasing the names until a decision is made on criminal actions or disciplinary action requiring the release of open records,” Enid Police Chief Rick West told the News & Eagle.

Update: "Attorney for Grassino, Nichols comes forward with identities," Enid News & Eagle, Dec. 22, 2009.

Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Journalism

AG: Gov’t may keep confidential employee DOBs and names of employees placed on paid administrative leave

Public bodies may keep employee dates of birth confidential when officials believe the employee’s privacy outweighs the public’s interest in disclosure, under a state attorney general opinion released this week.

Attorney General Drew Edmondson also said a public agency may keep secret the names of employees placed on paid administrative leave if, under the agency’s personnel policies, that action doesn’t constitute “a ‘final’ or ‘disciplinary’ action, nor a ‘final disciplinary action resulting in loss of pay, suspension, demotion, or termination.’”

But once the investigation is complete and a final disciplinary action occurs, “the record(s) indicating that action must be available for public inspection and copying,” Edmondson said.

The written opinion stemmed from The Oklahoman’s request for the birth date of an Oklahoma City employee placed on paid administrative leave during an investigation into the management of a federal grant. City officials also refused to identify another employee placed on paid administrative leave during the investigation.

At that time, Edmondson publicly said governments should err on the side of transparency regarding the release of employee birth dates. He said it would be difficult to contend that DOBs are private when they are found in a number of public records.

At the request of Oklahoma City officials, state Sen. Debbe Leftwich requested a formal opinion from Edmondson.

In that opinion, released on the AG Web site Wednesday, Edmondson said public bodies have the discretion to determine if disclosing an employee’s DOB is an “unwarranted invasion of privacy.”

“In making such a determination, the public body must weigh the employee’s interest in nondisclosure against the public’s interest in disclosing the record,” Edmondson said. “If the public body determines that the employee’s interest in nondisclosure is greater, it may keep the birth date confidential….”

Edmondson seems to have faith that officials will sincerely balance these two competing interests and not reflexively discount the public’s interest in disclosure.

But the opinion seems to provide government agencies with a ready-made answer favoring nondisclosure, stating:

“Disclosing employee’s birth dates seems as unlikely to assist citizens in finding out what their government is up to as disclosing employee’s ‘payroll deductions’ or the employment applications of persons not hired by the public body, which the ORA expressly allows public bodies, in their discretion, to keep confidential.”

The opinion does have one bright spot for open-government advocates. Edmondson rejected Oklahoma City’s argument that the federal Driver’s Privacy Protection Act blocked access to the birth dates of its employees.

Using the same reasoning as this blog did in August, Edmondson said the statute doesn’t list DOBs among the personal information on a driver’s license that should not be disclosed and the statute applies to the state Department of Public Safety, not the city.

Joey Senat, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

OSU School of Journalism