Showing posts with label law enforcement record. Show all posts
Showing posts with label law enforcement record. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Bartlesville newspaper posts hospital surveillance video that led to assault charges against two police officers
The Bartlesville Examiner-Enterprise received a copy of a hospital surveillance video on Friday after the newspaper agreed not to seek attorney's fees from the city, which in turn agreed not to appeal a judge's order to release the video.
The newspaper on Sunday posted the 44-minute video, which shows a confrontation in a local hospital emergency room between four Bartlesville police officers and a young man who had been brought to the hospital after expressing "suicidal thoughts."
The video has no audio. It shows the man "being pushed, choked, slapped and kneed by officers," the newspaper said.
"On the other hand, the patient appears to be constantly making verbal assaults and, in one instance, appears to spit at the officers," the newspaper reported. "There are instances, however, when each of the officers appears to react to something the man says or does — resulting in rough treatment of the patient.
"An especially disturbing episode on the video shows an apparent retaliatory confrontation with the man by [officer Sonya Jean] Worthington — who is seen punching, kneeing and twisting the head of the victim. The attack goes on for nearly a minute before one of the other officers intervenes," the newspaper reported.
Worthington and fellow Bartlesville Police Department officer Stacy Charles Neafus were charged with assault and battery on Dec. 1. They and a third officer, Carey Duniphin, were fired in mid-January. A fourth officer, Josh Patzkowski, was placed on administrative leave following the incident but has returned to active duty, the newspaper reported.
City officials had refused to release the video to the newspaper without a court order.
On March 12, District Judge Curtis L. DeLapp ordered Bartlesville police to provide the newspaper with a copy.
DeLapp said the video apparently "does not depict the administration of mental health treatment, mental health treatment information or the receiving of mental health treatment."
The judge noted that even if the video did contain such information, the patient had provided the newspaper with a waiver of his rights to confidentiality.
DeLapp also held that the video was public under the state Open Records Act because it contains "facts concerning the arrest and cause for the arrest" of the two police officers.
On Friday, Worthington, Neafus and Duniphin were among eight current and former Bartlesville Police Department officers who sued the city claiming "illegal and improper employment practices."
The alleged release of confidential personnel information is among the claims in the lawsuit, including that the city, "under the guise of 'training films," has shown the hospital surveillance video to other employees, the Bartlesville Examiner-Enterprise reported.
They also claimed that police officials had also taken the "video outside of the police department showing the video for other than 'training' purposes," the newspaper said.
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.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Bartlesville newspaper wins access to videotape in which two police officers allegedly assaulted a handcuffed hospital patient
A Washington County judge has ordered Bartlesville police to provide the local newspaper with a copy of hospital surveillance video that led to the arrest of two officers in December.
But the Bartlesville Examiner-Enterprise has not received the copy since the judge's ruling Monday afternoon.
Police Chief Tom Holland apparently is delaying release of the video so District Attorney Kevin D. Buchanan can seek an order from another judge to keep it confidential as part of his criminal investigation against the two officers.
When District Judge Curtis L. DeLapp ruled against the Bartlesville police on Monday, he did not decide whether Buchanan had to release the video.
The newspaper filed the Open Records Act lawsuit against Buchanan, the city and police department on Feb. 3 after city officials said it would take a court order to get a copy.
The video reportedly shows at least a portion of the incident in which two police officers are accused of striking and choking a handcuffed patient when they responded with other officers to the Jane Phillips Medical Center to help with a combative patient in September. Bartlesville police officials obtained the video through a search warrant.
The two officers were charged with assault and battery on Dec. 1 and fired in January.
The city attorney and Buchanan argued that the video was not public because mental health proceedings are confidential. The patient was the subject of an emergency detention order under mental health proceedings.
But DeLapp said the video apparently "does not depict the administration of mental health treatment, mental health treatment information or the receiving of mental health treatment."
DeLapp noted that even if the video does contain such information, the patient has provided the newspaper with a waiver of his rights to confidentiality.
The city and Buchanan also contended that the video was not public under the state Open Records Act because it is not listed among the law enforcement information that must be released.
DeLapp rejected that argument, holding that the video contains "facts concerning the arrest and cause for the arrest" of the two police officers.
In DeLapp's ruling, he relied upon a 2004 state Supreme Court decision that Department of Public Safety recordings of administrative hearings concerning revocation of drivers' licenses were public under the Open Records Act. (Fabian & Assoc., P.C., v. State ex. rel. Dept. of Public Safety, 2004 OK 67)
The Supreme Court held that the requested tapes contained facts concerning arrests and therefore were open under the Open Records Act. (Id. ¶ 14)
The statute makes public the "facts concerning the arrest, including the cause of arrest and the name of the arresting officer." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.8(2))
"By this statute," the Supreme Court said, "DPS is required to make available for public inspection facts concerning the arrest. [The plaintiff] asserts that the requested tapes contain the facts concerning the arrest and therefore § 24A.8(A)(2) requires the tapes to be open for public inspection. We agree."
DeLapp ruled that the hospital surveillance video was a record that came into the custody of Bartlesville police "in connection with the transaction of public business, i.e. the investigation of crimes committed within its jurisdiction."
"In particular, the Court finds that the videotape(s) would include the cause of the arrest," he ruled.
In contrast to DeLapp, a Rogers County judge in August ruled that Claremore police dash-cam video was not a public record. She said Fabian dealt "with what amounts to a transcript of a public hearing" while the dash-cam recording was a "direct piece of evidence."
DeLapp's interpretation seems the more plausible of the two.
And provides a much-needed victory for the public's right to know during Sunshine Week.
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.
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Owasso agrees to release police officer lapel camera video, audio materials after family files Open Records Act lawsuit
Owasso city officials have agreed to provide the police officer lapel camera video and audio materials sought by the family of a Tulsa man who died Oct. 27 in the Tulsa County jail, the Owasso Reporter reported Thursday.
The family had filed an Open Records Act lawsuit against Owasso after the police department would release only an arrest report, a radio log and a computer-aided dispatch report.
In the lawsuit, the family argued that the lapel video and other materials were "essential in determining the events which transpired during the arrest," the Tulsa World reported.
An attorney for the city had told the family that the video and audio materials were "in my opinion outside the scope of documents you are entitled to under the Open Records Act," the Owasso Reporter said.
In November, Owasso City Manager Rodney J. Ray refused requests by the Owasso Reporter and Tulsa World for a copy of lapel camera video showing a police lieutenant using excessive force for which he was fired.
Ray said arrest videos are not included in the eight categories of law enforcement records that must be released under the state Open Record Act. (See OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.8(A)(1-8))
The statute allows police departments to deny access to other law enforcement records "except where a court finds that the public interest or the interest of an individual outweighs the reason for denial." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.8(B))
But Ray said the public interest in releasing the lapel camera video of the police lieutenant using excessive force didn't outweigh protecting his right to appeal his firing.
In August, a Rogers County judge held that the Claremore Police Department's dash-cam recordings are not public records under the state Open Records Act.
But Associate District Judge Sheila A. Condren's ruling on the status of police videos runs contrary to relevant cases and to common practice in the state.
In 2005, an Oklahoma County district judge barred "the Oklahoma Highway Patrol from keeping videotapes of traffic arrests secret." (That ruling spurred legislators that year into exempting all Department of Public Safety dash-cam audio and video recordings.)
A year earlier, the state Supreme Court had held that Department of Public Safety recordings of administrative hearings concerning revocation of drivers' licenses were public under the Open Records Act. (Fabian & Assoc., P.C., v. State ex. rel. Dept. of Public Safety, 2004 OK 67)
The Supreme Court said the requested tapes contained facts concerning arrests and therefore were open under the Open Records Act. (Id. ¶ 14)
The statute makes public the "facts concerning the arrest, including the cause of arrest and the name of the arresting officer." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.8(2))
"By this statute," the Supreme Court said, "DPS is required to make available for public inspection facts concerning the arrest. Fabian asserts that the requested tapes contain the facts concerning the arrest and therefore § 24A.8(A)(2) requires the tapes to be open for public inspection. We agree."
Owasso city officials apparently agreed that the lapel video should be public after the family forced them into court on the issue.
Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Media & Strategic Communications
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Update: Owasso city manager says public interest in releasing lapel camera video of police lieutenant using excessive force doesn't outweigh protecting his right to appeal firing
Owasso City Manager Rodney J. Ray this week refused local newspapers' requests for a copy of lapel camera video showing a police lieutenant using excessive force for which he was fired.
Arrest videos are not included in the eight categories of law enforcement records that must be released under the state Open Record Act, Ray said in an email Tuesday to the Owasso Reporter and Tulsa World. (See OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.8(A)(1-8))
The statute allows police departments to deny access to other law enforcement records "except where a court finds that the public interest or the interest of an individual outweighs the reason for denial." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.8(B))
Former police Lt. Michael Denton was fired Nov. 4 based on an official determination that he had used excessive force in the June 30 arrest of a Collinsville man.
Police Chief Dan Yancey said a police officer lapel camera captured video that was useful in the investigation of the complaint against Denton.
Ray, in denying the newspapers' Open Records Act request for the video, said Denton is "entitled under both local and state law to appeal his termination to the City of Owasso's Personnel Board and to also seek binding arbitration."
"After consideration of a number of factors including rights of arbitration and appeal guaranteed by law to the employee, the City of Owasso has determined that disclosure of the arrest video is not appropriate and does not believe the public interest outweighs the reasons for denial of this request," Ray said. "Therefore, requests for release of [the] arrest video must be declined."
Denton's attorney has said his client did not use excessive force and his firing was unjustified. Denton has initiated a grievance through the Fraternal Order of Police, the Owasso Reporter said Nov. 10.
But Ray didn't explain how public disclosure of the video would jeopardize Denton's rights of arbitration and appeal. Wouldn't the video be introduced as evidence in such proceedings? Wouldn't those officials make a decision based on evidence, not on public opinion? Will the video be released once the arbitration is completed?
As for whether the video should be considered a law enforcement record that must be disclosed, Ray's reasoning follows a Rogers County judge's ruling in August.
Associate District Judge Sheila A. Condren held that the Claremore Police Department's dash-cam recordings are not public records under the state Open Records Act.
She said requesters could ask a court to find that the release of a particular recording would serve a public interest that outweighs the reason for denial.
However, Condren's ruling on the status of police videos runs contrary to relevant cases and to common practice in the state.
In 2005, an Oklahoma County district judge barred "the Oklahoma Highway Patrol from keeping videotapes of traffic arrests secret." (That ruling spurred legislators that year into exempting all Department of Public Safety dash-cam audio and video recordings.)
A year earlier, the state Supreme Court that Department of Public Safety recordings of administrative hearings concerning revocation of drivers' licenses were public under the Open Records Act. (Fabian & Assoc., P.C., v. State ex. rel. Dept. of Public Safety, 2004 OK 67)
The Supreme Court held that the requested tapes contained facts concerning arrests and therefore were open under the Open Records Act. (Id. ¶ 14)
The statute makes public the "facts concerning the arrest, including the cause of arrest and the name of the arresting officer." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.8(2))
"By this statute," the Supreme Court said, "DPS is required to make available for public inspection facts concerning the arrest. Fabian asserts that the requested tapes contain the facts concerning the arrest and therefore § 24A.8(A)(2) requires the tapes to be open for public inspection. We agree."
The Owasso lapel camera video certainly contains facts concerning the arrest of the Collinsville man in which the excessive force occurred.
Other local law enforcement agencies typically release such recordings. In June, for example, Catoosa officials agreed to release that police department's audio and video recordings. In August, the Oklahoma County sheriff released the dash cam video of a head-on collision in which a deputy was injured.
The public certainly has an interest in seeing how those entrusted with enforcing our laws are doing their jobs.
State legislators should resolve this issue by updating our Open Records Act to explicitly defining audio and video recordings of arrests as law enforcement records that must be disclosed along with incident reports and other information related to arrests.
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.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Rogers County judge rules police dash-cam video not public record under Open Records Act
The Claremore Police Department's dash-cam recordings are not public records under the state Open Records Act, a Rogers County judge ruled Tuesday.
But requesters may ask a court to find that the release of a particular recording would serve a public interest that outweighs the reason for denial, noted Associate District Judge Sheila A. Condren.
Two attorneys who specialize in drunken-driving cases -- Stephen G. Fabian Jr. of Oklahoma City and Josh D. Lee of Ward & Lee -- sued Claremore and Catoosa in June for access to their police departments' dash-cam recordings.
Condren's ruling in favor of Claremore was a surprise given that the city of Catoosa in June agreed to release its police department's audio and video recordings and because local law enforcement agencies typically release such recordings.
For example, the Oklahoma County sheriff last week released the dash cam video of a head-on collision in which a deputy was injured.
Condren's ruling contradicted an Oklahoma County district judge's 2005 ruling that favored Fabian by barring "the Oklahoma Highway Patrol from keeping videotapes of traffic arrests secret." (That ruling spurred legislators that year into exempting all Department of Public Safety dash-cam audio and video recordings.)
Her ruling also seems at odds with a 2004 state Supreme Court ruling also in favor of Fabian. The court ruled that DPS recordings of administrative hearings concerning revocation of drivers' licenses were public under the Open Records Act. (Fabian & Assoc., P.C., v. State ex. rel. Dept. of Public Safety, 2004 OK 67)
The Supreme Court held that the requested tapes contained facts concerning arrests and therefore were open under the Open Records Act. (Id. ¶ 14)
The statute makes public the "facts concerning the arrest, including the cause of arrest and the name of the arresting officer." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.8(2))
"By this statute," the Supreme Court said, "DPS is required to make available for public inspection facts concerning the arrest. Fabian asserts that the requested tapes contain the facts concerning the arrest and therefore § 24A.8(A)(2) requires the tapes to be open for public inspection. We agree."
The Claremore police department's dash-cam recordings certainly contain facts concerning arrests.
Even Condren noted that the Claremore Police Department's dash-cam audio and video was "the only recording possessed by CPD of Plaintiff's client regarding the DUI stop and arrest."
But Condren said the Supreme Court case dealt "with what amounts to a transcript of a public hearing."
"In contrast, the 'dash cam' recording is a direct piece of evidence," she said. "As a result, the Court finds the Fabian case distinguishable from the facts presented at bar, and finds the 'dash cam' recording is not a public record pursuant to Title 51 O.S. § 24A.8 which is subject to public inspection."
The Supreme Court had interpreted the Open Records Act as requiring certain information in the hands of law enforcement to be made public.
Condren, however, read the statute as listing documents that must be public. And dash-cam recordings are not specified. (See OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.8(1-8))
Condren's ruling is a blow to the public's need to know in Oklahoma. Other local law enforcement agencies are likely to cite it as a reason for not releasing their dash-cam videos.
But Fabian and Lee aren't likely to give up in this case, so we can hope that an appellate court will put dash-cam recordings firmly back in the realm of public information.
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.
Monday, August 29, 2011
Wagoner police identify two officers involved in fatal shooting
The Wagoner Police Department on Friday released radio logs identifying the two officers involved in the fatal shooting of a Coweta man outside a Wagoner fast-food restaurant on Aug. 16, the Muskogee Phoenix reported.
Wagoner Police Chief Bob Haley had refused to disclose the names, citing an ongoing OSBI investigation as justification for not disclosing the names, the newspaper had reported.
But no provision of the Oklahoma Open Records Act permitted such a delay. The statute requires that the following information be made public: "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."
The state Attorney General's Office has long said Oklahoma public agencies and officials have a "duty" to provide prompt, reasonable access to public information. (2005 OK AG 3, ¶ 4)
"There is no provision in the Open Records Act for a public body to 'withhold' records for any amount of time, however small. The duty to provide prompt and reasonable access is complied with only when a public body properly attends to its duty to provide a record," according to a formal 1999 opinion. (1999 OK AG 58, ¶ 11)
On Friday, the identities of Officers Jamie Powell and Kevin Higginbottom were revealed in documents provided to the Muskogee Phoenix in response to its Open Records Act request.
District Attorney Brian Kuester on Friday cleared Powell and Higginbottom, saying their use of deadly force was justified because the Coweta man was attacking them with a knife.
Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Media & Strategic Communications
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Wagoner police chief refuses to identify two officers involved in fatal shooting more than a week ago
For nine days, Wagoner Police Chief Bob Haley has refused to tell the public which two of his officers were involved in the fatal shooting of a Coweta man outside a Wagoner fast-food restaurant, the Muskogee Phoenix reported today.
Haley has cited the ongoing OSBI investigation as justification for not disclosing the names, the newspaper reported.
But no provision of the Oklahoma Open Records Act provides for such a delay.
The statute requires that the following information be made public: "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))
I'm told that Haley says he won't release the incident reports because the officers haven't filed one because they were placed on administrative leave following the shooting on Aug. 16.
Haley might be well-intentioned, but his reasoning is nonsensical and an insult to the people of Wagoner.
The statute says "information showing...." It doesn't require that an incident report have been filed.
Regardless of the OSBI investigation, that information is public when it's in the hands of the Wagoner police. No provision of the Open Records Act allows for the information to be redacted.
Certainly the police chief knows which officers were involved. How else could they have been placed on administrative leave? How else could the OSBI be conducting its investigation?
When does Haley intend to release the information? Never? Does he contend that the public is not entitled to the information?
The Open Records Act doesn't let government officials decide when it's time to disclose information that the public is entitled to know.
Oklahoma public agencies and officials have a "duty" to provide prompt, reasonable access to public information. (2005 OK AG 3, ¶ 4)
"There is no provision in the Open Records Act for a public body to 'withhold' records for any amount of time, however small. The duty to provide prompt and reasonable access is complied with only when a public body properly attends to its duty to provide a record," the state Attorney General's Office has said. (1999 OK AG 58, ¶ 11)
So the law doesn't empower the police chief to withhold this information until he deems the time is right. It's public information that should be disclosed now.
Why does Haley not want the public to know this information?
Oklahomans "are vested with the inherent right to know and be fully informed about their government." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.2)
The purpose of the Oklahoma Open Records Act is "to ensure and facilitate the public's right of access to and review of government records so they may efficiently and intelligently exercise their inherent political power."
That right to know is stolen from the public when public officials refuse to abide by the Open Records Act. The police chief might not like this law, but he has an obligation to follow it.
And by hiding the names, Haley is making the situation worse by giving the impression that the department and those officers have something to hide. He is doing a disservice to those officers.
It's time to tell the public who the officers are.
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.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Catoosa, Claremore sued for police audio, video recordings
A Vinita attorney is asking a Rogers County judge to force Catoosa and Claremore city officials to make public their police departments' audio and video recordings.
Josh D. Lee of Ward & Lee, which specializes in drunken-driving cases, filed the lawsuits on Tuesday.
A hearing before Associate District Judge Sheila A. Condren has been scheduled for June 22.
Lee's co-counsel is Stephen G. Fabian Jr. of Oklahoma City.
Fabian, who also specializes in DUI cases, successfully sued the state Department of Public Safety in 2005 after the Oklahoma Highway Patrol began refusing to release videotapes of traffic arrests.
"We continue to find that many officers make up evidence and exaggerate their testimony about the events. These tapes are extremely important to a citizen who is wrongly accused," Fabian told The Oklahoman at the time.
Fabian had used the Open Records Act to gather hundreds of such videotapes from OHP and police departments.
However, state legislators curtailed public access to DPS's audio and video recordings in May 2005 after an Oklahoma County judge ruled in Fabian's favor against DPS.
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 release name of man fatally shot by officers, identify officers involved in two shootings, but refuse to identify 17-year-old wounded by police
Dax Buck Anthony Minor, 30, of New Caney, Texas, was the man fatally shot by Moore police last week, officials told The Oklahoman on Tuesday.
But Moore police officials still refuse to identify a 17-year-old shot by an officer in another incident more than a week ago. They told the newspaper that state law prevents them from identifying the teen unless he is arrested or charged in connection with a felony.
That seems likely given that police previously said the teen was driving a stolen car when he tried to elude officers and was shot in the stomach when he left the car and tried to run.
But if he's not, does that mean the public will never know who was shot by a police officer? That's absurd.
Though if he's not arrested, a federal lawsuit featuring the teen as the plaintiff would seem probable.
Police told The Oklahoman that no gun was found on the teenager or in the car. Sgt. Jason Landrum, a six-year veteran Moore officer, was involved in the shooting, officials told the newspaper.
The Oklahoman also reports that no weapon was found on Minor or in his pickup truck.
Sgt. Ernest Lockett, an eight-year veteran, and Sgt. Rick Bentley, a six-year veteran, were identified as the officers involved in that shooting.
All three officers are on administrative leave pending investigations into the shootings.
Moore police officials on Tuesday released more information about the shootings in response to an open records request by The Oklahoman. The details can be found in the newspaper's story.
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.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
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.
Monday, May 9, 2011
OHP orders Nowata County sheriff not to release bail amount, mugshot of man arrested in connection with hit-and-run fatality
The Oklahoma Highway Patrol ordered the Nowata County sheriff not to release the bail amount or the mugshot of a man arrested and jailed in connection with a hit-and-run in which a pedestrian was killed, the Tulsa World reported early Monday evening.
The OHP's explanation for why such information should be kept secret and under what statute OHP has the authority to issue such an order were not explained in the story.
The Tulsa World said only that Nowata County Sheriff’s Sgt. Donald Lynn declined to release the bail amount or a mugshot of Roy Dale Cheatham, 46, of Delaware, Okla., upon orders of the OHP local division.
NewsOn6 and KTUL each used a previous mug shot of Cheatham in their stories posted online.
Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Media & Strategic Communications
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
OSU, OU officials refuse to disclose parking citations given to students, say tickets are educational records protected by FERPA
(This story was written by Elise Jenswold, a student in my reporting course this spring. It was published Tuesday in The Daily O'Collegian. Thank you to FOI Oklahoma members Bob Nelon and Mike Minnis for their time spent answering questions for the article. -- Joey Senat)
Oklahoma’s two major public universities will not disclose parking citation records containing student names, claiming they are educational records protected from disclosure by a federal privacy law.
But three open records experts said they believe the records are public under the state’s Open Records Act because committing a parking violation has nothing to do with a student’s education.
A Maryland appellate court used the same reasoning in 1997 when it unanimously ruled that the same records at the University of Maryland were open under that state’s public records law. (Kirwan v. The Diamondback, 721 A.2d 196, 27 Media L. Rep. 1399 (Md. Ct. App. 1998))
The Maryland Court of Appeals said the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act was not intended “to preclude the release of any record simply because the record contained the name of a student.”
“The federal statute was obviously intended to keep private those aspects of a student’s educational life that relate to academic status as a student,” the court said. “Prohibiting disclosure of any document containing a student’s name would allow universities to operate in secret, which would be contrary to one of the policies behind the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.”
The university’s student newspaper, The Diamondback, sought the records after learning that a basketball player had 285 parking violations, many for parking in handicapped spaces, and more than $8,000 in unpaid parking fines.
Oklahoma State University issued more than 18,029 parking tickets to students, faculty and visitors from Aug. 1 to April 9, according to university records.
OSU officials took 14 days to respond to a reporter’s request for the database of student parking violations. Ultimately, the university refused to disclose the names of students who received citations and provided only the types of violations that occurred in campus parking lots.
OSU attorney Doug Price said the individual records of citations given to students are educational records that must be kept confidential under FERPA.
University of Oklahoma officials also cited student privacy when they denied access to that school’s database of parking citations issued to students.
“I don’t believe I will be able to release student names. That has to be against a privacy right,” said Kris Glenn, a marketing and public relations specialist for OU’s parking and transit department.
OU’s open records administrator offered to provide “numbers and statistics, but no names because of student’s privacy.” Rachel McCombs said OU records containing student information could not be disclosed without a release form signed by the student.
FERPA defines educational records as school documents that “contain information directly related to a student.”
But Oklahoma City attorneys Bob Nelon and Michael Minnis said they don’t believe the parking citations are educational records because they are not related to student education.
FERPA excludes “records maintained by a law enforcement unit of the educational agency or institution that were created by that law enforcement unit for the purpose of law enforcement.”
The U.S. Department of Education has defined enforcement units as including commissioned officers or non-commissioned security guards authorized or designated to enforce state and local laws, or to “maintain the physical security and safety” of the campus.
Price said OSU’s parking citations “are processed through an administrative process and are not created for a ‘law enforcement’ purpose.”
An attorney for the Student Press Law Center, however, disagreed with Price’s interpretation of the statute.
“The definition of law enforcement unit is any part of the school that is officially authorized to enforce any state, local or federal law, or to refer people to proper authorities for violations of those laws,” said Adam Goldstein. “It doesn’t matter who is writing these tickets —if the Dean of Students is writing parking tickets, the Dean’s office is a law enforcement unit under the regulations and can’t cite FERPA to avoid disclosing law enforcement records.”
A 1998 written opinion by the Kansas attorney general drew a distinction between parking citations enforceable as misdemeanors and those enforceable only as administrative policies.
“If a university's parking rules and policies are legally enforceable as a misdemeanor, then the parking tickets may be exempt from FERPA as law enforcement records and thus not subject to its confidentiality requirements,” the opinion stated.
“Alternately, if the parking tickets are only enforceable on an administrative level within the university, they are more analogous to disciplinary records, which we believe are ‘education records’ which are generally closed by FERPA,” the opinion stated.
According to OSU policies, “Parking rules and regulations are enforced on campus by OSU Police Officers and OSU Parking Cadets.” Students, faculty, staff and campus visitors may appeal their citations.
“Visitors that receive a parking citation for the first time may get that ticket waived,” the policy states. “However, excessive violations or violations for parking in reserved or restricted parking areas, such as disability or spaces signed for specific vehicles will be enforced.”
OU’s parking regulations are enforced “primarily by Parking Control personnel of the Parking Office, who wear black and tan uniforms.”
“University parking citations are adjudicated wholly within the University as an administrative process,” according to OU policy.
OSU’s Doug Price also contended that even if the records were considered law enforcement records exempted from FERPA, they would not be subject to the state Open Records Act because they are not explicitly listed in the statute as records that police must provide to the public.
Nelon and Minnis, each of whom has won open records cases, disagreed with Price’s interpretation.
Nelon said that while the term "citation" is not used, “a citation presumably includes the kinds of information identified” in the list.
“Parking citations ought to be made available as public records,” said Nelon.
Subsequent media coverage:
- Oklahoma universities' parking ticket secrecy stirs questions, by Bryan Dean, The Oklahoman, 5.9.10.
- Are students' parking tickets public records? by Jenna Johnson, Campus Overload Blog, The Washington Post, 5.10.10.
- Common sense needed, Editorial, The Oklahoman, 5.15.10.
Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Journalism
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)