skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Tulsa officials changed course Friday, releasing 911 recordings of two calls made following a state trooper-involved fatal shooting at a local motel, the Tulsa World reported today.
Police Chief Chuck Jordan and the city's Legal Department indicated that the decision to release 911 recordings is discretionary, not because the Open Records Act requires it.
"Due to the fact that it was a state issue, I spent much time in deliberation over the release of the recordings," Jordan said. "Tulsa Police Department remains committed to transparency and in the public interest we are now releasing the 911 recordings as requested by the Tulsa World."
The newspaper's editorial writers understandably said they are "puzzle[d] over the idea that there might be less reason for public access to public records because of 'a state issue.'"
For the reasons I gave Thursday, I disagree that Jordan can pick and choose which 911 calls to make public. But at least he decided to release these recordings, thereby avoiding an extended fight with the newspaper.
However, that wasn't the only open government problem at Tulsa City Hall.
The Tulsa World reported this morning that more than a month after the request, city officials haven't released "emails that could settle questions over how much Mayor Dewey Bartlett and his administration knew about problems in the city's green-waste program."
The newspaper asked for emails containing the phrase "green waste" sent or received in the last year by six city officials, including Bartlett, City Manager Jim Twombly and the city's lead trash managers.
City spokeswoman Michelle Allen told the newspaper that the city's Legal Department is reviewing each of the some 2,500 emails and attachments "for compliance (with the Open Records Act) and appropriate content to fulfilling the request."
According to the newspaper, Bartlett said the emails must be checked manually before being released because "we have a responsibility to the public to give the correct information and not disclose info that is personal in nature."
In 2006, then-Attorney General Drew Edmondson told The Oklahoman that an OSU policy requiring all public records requests to be cleared by school attorneys might violate the Open Records Act by not providing "prompt and reasonable" access.
"If that policy were challenged, then a judge would have to determine whether the circumstances within that particular agency are not only prudent but necessary," Edmondson said. "I would say that it is not typical and typically would not be found to be reasonable."
Under the Open Records Act, public bodies are required to "designate certain employees who are authorized to release records . . . for inspection, copying, or mechanical reproduction. At least one person shall be available at all times to release records during the regular business hours of the public body."
In a 2005 open records training video for police, Edmondson said:
That person should have a working familiarity with the Open Records Act and be able to respond to citizen inquiries for records. And that would mean in most instances, if not all instances, they should not have to ask someone else for permission or authority.
He acknowledged that the designated person could encounter "an unusual request" requiring the advice of an attorney.
"But that should be a rare exception," Edmondson said. "By and large, the person at the desk who is supposed to respond to open records requests should be able to do so without consultation with anybody else."
Tulsa city attorneys are reviewing records compiled by other employees. That adds an unnecessary -- and perhaps illegal -- delay in releasing public documents.
It also adds to the impression of a city administration that doesn't genuinely believe in transparent government -- a perception that Bartlett cannot afford eight weeks before he faces re-election.
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.
The city of Tulsa's Legal Department won't release recordings of two calls made to police following a state trooper-involved fatal shooting at a local motel, the Tulsa World reported today.
The newspaper noted that the city has released at least seven other 911 recordings since 2010.
And after Tulsa's municipal employees union sued the city in June for access to a 911 recording, a city spokeswoman told the Tulsa World that the city considered 911 recordings to be public records and released them regularly.
But this week, Assistant City Attorney Shelton Benedict told the newspaper, "There's nothing in the (state) Open Records Act that says produce audio, and if you've got it in the past, my guess is that that would fall under the discretionary part."
The Open Records Act lists radio logs among the records that "law enforcement agencies shall make available for public inspection." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.8(A)(4))
The Open Records Act doesn't define radio logs. However, an attorney general opinion interpreting the statute's previous version indicated that radio logs include "any recorded electronic transmissions made between the police dispatcher(s) and other parties." (1984 OK AG 119, ¶ 22)
"[R]ecorded electronic transactions with the police department are subject to the Open Records Act," said the opinion, relying upon a Wyoming case and upon Oklahoma cases broadly interpreting the term "record." (Id. ¶ 28)
The Tulsa Police Department's news media policy -- mimicking the current statute's definition -- defines records as
All documents, including but not limited to, any book, paper, photograph (including mugshots), microfilm, computer tape, disk, record, sound recording, film recording, video recording, or other material regardless of physical form or characteristic, created by, received by, under the authority of, or coming into the custody, control, or possession of the Tulsa Police Department.
The lawsuit filed by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 1180 is pending in Tulsa County District Court. Neither side has yet explained in court filings why 911 recordings are or aren't public under the Open Records Act. (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 1180 v. City of Tulsa, No. CV-2013-690 (Tulsa Co. Dist. Ct. June 5, 2013)
Such recordings are routinely released by law enforcement agencies in Oklahoma. These records should be open to the public because they can reveal serious problems in the 911 system.
In June, for example, Delaware County residents "expressed outrage over slow response times and inadequate training by 911 dispatchers in incidents where several people, including three children, have died in the past nine months," the Tulsa World reported.
Most of the anger centered on the drowning death of a 7-year-old girl at the Eucha State Park pool. According to the media reports, the 911 dispatcher can be heard making several blunders during the nearly six-minute call, including misdialing the telephone number for the Jay Police Department. The sheriff requested an outside investigation into the 911 call.
Residents also were angry over the 911 call related to the death of a 3-year-old in a house fire near Lakemont Shore.
"The (911) dispatcher told her (the mother) to hang up and call the sheriff's office,” a resident told county commissioners. "Who has time to look through a telephone book?"
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.
A police dash cam video of a DUI arrest contains facts concerning the arrest and therefore is public under the state Open Records Act, a three-judge panel of the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals ruled 2-1 Friday.
In overturning a Rogers County trial judge, the majority relied upon a 2004 state Supreme Court ruling that Department of Public Safety recordings of administrative hearings concerning revocation of drivers' licenses are public.
"If an Implied Consent hearing is considered 'facts concerning the arrest,' then surely the video and/or audio recording of the actual arrest must also constitute 'facts concerning the arrest,'" said Judges Robert Bell and Kenneth Buettner on Friday.
Chief Judge Larry Joplin cast the dissenting vote but with no written opinion.
The Oklahoma Open Records Act 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(A)(2))
The Oklahoma Supreme Court in 2004 said the DPS recording of administrative hearings contained facts concerning arrests and therefore are open under the Open Records Act. (Fabian & Assoc., P.C., v. State ex. rel. Dept. of Public Safety, 2004 OK 67)
But in 2011, a Rogers County trial judge ruled that Claremore Police Department dash cam recordings were not public records.
Associate District Judge Sheila A. Condren said the state 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.
Bell and Buettner said her "holding that the video is exempt because it could be used as evidence in a subsequent criminal prosecution is without legal support."
"There is no such exemption enumerated in the Act," they noted.
They also noted that although state legislators had exempted Oklahoma Highway Patrol video and audio recordings in 2005 following an Oklahoma County district judge's ruling barring the OHP from keeping videotapes of traffic arrests secret, no such exemption existed for local law enforcement.
Condren also had ruled that Claremore did not violate the Open Records Act because the requesters had listed the wrong date -- April 4, not March 4 -- for the arrest and therefore no such video existed for that date.
"It is not reasonable to expect a public agency to anticipate what records are being requested," she reasoned. "It is the responsibility of the requesting party to provide accurate information regarding the records they seek."
But Bell and Buettner emphatically overturned Condren on that point as well.
Police officials might have been initially confused by the wrong date but had subsequently provided many documents concerning the arrest, Bell and Buettner said.
They noted that Claremore Police Chief Stan Brown testified that he understood the request was for records of a March 4 arrest and that he refused to provide the video because of his departmental policy requiring such video be requested from the district attorney's office.
Brown "knew exactly what" records were being requested, concluded Bell and Buettner.
Condren's conclusion that the city had "technically complied" with the request "because of the erroneous date is clearly contrary to the weight of the evidence," the two appellate judges ruled.
Bell and Buettner's ruling is a victory for common sense and the public's need to know. Public access to dash cam recordings of arrests protects police officers from false allegations of misconduct and provides those arrested with evidence of actual abuse.
Local law enforcement officials typically release dash cam videos. But I won't be surprised if cities and sheriffs ask legislators next year for the same exemption
granted to the Oklahoma Highway Patrol.
I hope that enough legislators will recognize the value of public access to such recordings and will not only reject such a request but also remove the exemption for OHP video and audio.
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.
Oklahoma State University officials are saying the Clery Act's privacy protection for victims doesn't apply if the federal statute doesn't require the school to report the crime as an annual statistic.
OSU spokesman Gary Shutt told reporters on Friday night that the school was permitted to include a female student's name in a police report because her allegation of a secretly recorded sex-video wasn't covered by the Clery Act.
"This incident did not fall under Clery, it was not a sexual assault or any other incident that falls under the Clery Act," Shutt told News 9 in Oklahoma City. "In cases that are not a violent crime, the reporting party information is made available. This was not a case that involved bodily harm or was violent."
He similarly told The Daily O'Collegian that the name "did not fall under Clery because it was not an assault or other Clery-covered incident."
OSU police Capt. Richard Atkins made the same claim, telling the newspaper:
It's an invasion of privacy crime, not a sex offense under the Clery Act, so it is not a Clery-reportable crime. It is classified in Clery logs as another state law violation.
Atkins and Shutt are correct that the federal statute lists certain crimes for which annual statistics must be reported. Those statistics must not include the names of victims and suspects.
However, the federal statute also requires the university to keep and make public a log of all crimes reported to campus police.
From the U.S. Department of Education’s 2011 Handbook for Campus Safety and
Security Reporting:
The purpose of the daily crime log is to record criminal incidents and alleged criminal incidents that are reported to the campus police or security department. For example, if a student tells your security office that he lost his wallet in the parking lot behind a dorm, it is not a criminal incident, and you aren’t required to record it in the log. However, if a student tells your security office that his wallet was stolen from his dorm room, this is an alleged criminal incident which must be recorded in the log. (p. 90)
How the Crime Log Differs From Other Campus Safety and Security Disclosures
The crime log differs from other disclosure requirements in some important ways:
- Crime log entries include all crimes reported to the campus police or security department for the required geographic locations, not just Clery Act crimes. (emphasis included)
- The crime log discloses specific information about criminal incidents, not crime statistics. (p. 91)
The OSU female student reported a crime. It must be in the crime log. So it does fall under the Clery Act.
And the federal handbook says victim names must be redacted from the crime log available to the public.
Many institutions are also required by state law to maintain a log. If your institution maintains such a log, you may use it for your daily crime log as well, providing it meets all Clery Act requirements. However, if the state crime log requires the victims’ names to be listed, for Clery purposes those names must be redacted for public inspection. The federal Clery Act regulations state that a disclosure may not jeopardize the confidentiality of the victim. This takes precedence over state crime log laws. (p. 90)
Oklahoma's Open Records Act doesn't distinguish between "crime logs" and "incident reports."
Moreover, as I noted Friday, it seems contradictory for the Clery Act to supersede state laws on "crime logs" in order to prohibit the release of the victim's name by the university but not to override state laws on "incident reports" and thus allow the release of the name by the university.
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.
Oklahoma City police officials last week trotted out vague references to HIPAA, Oklahoma's mental health statutes, and federal regulations protecting alcohol and drug abuse patient records as excuses for not telling the public which officer fired his gun near a school while reportedly acting strangely at his home.
Those laws don't prohibit police officials from fully disclosing in the incident report the officer's name as well as the exact location and other details of what happened Sept. 27 near Santa Fe Elementary.
Concealing the information didn't stop The Oklahoman's reporter Bryan Dean from learning the name of the officer: Sgt. Chris Suriano.
Or keep Dean from learning Suriano's home address and speaking with neighbors who fear a cover-up and with school district officials who gave a markedly different account of the incident than provided by police.
But it has upset nearby residents who have children attending the school, Dean reported today.
"We can handle the truth a lot better than we can handle lies," neighbor Elvis Humphrey told Dean.
Police spokesman Capt. Dexter Nelson had said just days after the incident that the officer fired at least one gunshot into the floor of his home.
But a Moore School District official says the shots were fired outside the house about 2:45 p.m. that Thursday.
"There was a report of a man in a neighborhood that is just west of Santa Fe who had gone out on his front porch and shot off his gun a few times," the school district official told Dean. "Then he went back in his house, and a little later he did it again."
The elementary school and Highland West Junior High School were locked down about 30 minutes, the school district official said.
Dean reported that a heavily redacted police report mentions nothing about gunshots.
Nelson told Dean, last year's president of FOI Oklahoma Inc., that the report was redacted "according to Oklahoma State Mental Health Law Title 43A,
Federal Regulation 42 CFR Part-2 (Public Health), HIPAA regulations, and other city and departmental policies."
Simply citing Title 43A, which contains the state's mental health statutes, is a sure sign that city officials know these laws don't restrict the information placed in police incident reports. Otherwise, the officials would have cited the specific statutory provision that does so.
The same is true of simply citing Federal Regulation 42 CFR Part-2 (Public Health), which protects the confidentiality of patient records in alcohol and drug abuse programs receiving federal funds. Nothing indicates that these regulations restrict the information that local law enforcement agencies place in their incident reports.
Claiming that the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act applies to police reports is absolute nonsense. The federal Department of Health and Human Services has clarified that police records aren't subject to HIPAA. Other legal authorities have long come to the same conclusion.
For example, Kentucky's attorney general in 2004 said HIPAA doesn't govern police reports, reasoning:
Because the Privacy Rule only applies to covered entities, a public agency to which a records request has been submitted must first determine if it qualifies as a health plan, a health care clearinghouse, or a health care provider which transmits any health information in electronic form in connection with a transaction covered by the Rule.
Only if the agency resolves this issue affirmatively must it proceed to a determination of whether the requested records contain protected health information that is subject to the Privacy Rule.
The Covington Police Department is neither a health plan, a health clearinghouse, nor a health care provider that transmits health information in electronic form in connection with a transaction that is subject to the Privacy Rule.
Records generated by police officers do not contain protected health information, even if those records reflect the officer's observations of an individual's medical condition, and such records are not governed by the Privacy Rule. The incidental delivery of emergency aid by a police officer does not transform the police officer into a health care provider since his primary function is the protection of public safety. Simply stated, HIPAA has no application to records generated by a police department in discharging its duty to protect public safety.
(Op. Att’y Gen. Ky. 2004-ORD-143, p. 6 (Aug. 24, 2004) (Open Records Decision))
Likewise, Texas' attorney general in 2004 said:
A police department is not a covered entity. ... In particular, it is not a covered health care provider because it is not a provider of [health] services ... or an entity that furnishes, bills, or is paid for health care in the normal course of business. ... Thus, a record created by a police officer, including a record that documents an officer's observation of the medical condition of an individual, cannot be protected health information subject to the Privacy Rule. Nor is health information the police department obtains through a Privacy Rule exception from a covered entity, such as a hospital, subject to the Privacy Rule. (Op. Att'y Gen. Tex. ORD-681 (Feb. 13, 2004))
Yet eight years later, Oklahoma City officials are claiming that HIPAA requires them to redact information from police reports.
Police Chief Bill Citty told The Oklahoman there is no effort to keep information from the public.
How can he say that?
Folks living in Suriano's neighborhood don't seem to believe him.
"The police are acting like it's no big deal," Sheryl Humphrey told the newspaper. "He was endangering a whole school full of elementary kids. It just makes it look like they are covering this up. If this was us, our address would have been put out there. Our names would have been released."
She is right. The name of anyone, but especially a police officer, who fires a gun near an elementary school should be in the incident report provided to the public.
(To read the earlier posting: OKC police refuse to identify officer who fired gun in his home, taken to hospital for mental health check)
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.
Oklahoma City police officials won't tell the public which of its officers fired a gun in his house Thursday when other officers responded to a call that he was acting strangely, The Oklahoman reported Saturday.
The officer was taken to a hospital for a mental health check, the newspaper was told.
The officer's wife called police about 3:50 p.m. Thursday to report that he was talking and acting strangely at their house in the 12700 block of South Robinson Avenue., which runs behind Santa Fe Elementary School. I am told that the school was locked down during the incident.
The Oklahoman reported that among those responding was the department's tactical team, which remained on standby while other officers investigated.
The officer fired at least one gunshot into the floor of his home, The Oklahoman was told.
The department's public information officer said he wasn't arrested because police don't know if a crime occurred. Capt. Dexter Nelson told the newspaper:
He can shoot up his house all that he wants to. If he has a firearm in his house and shoots up his house and isn't endangering anyone else, that's not necessarily a crime. We have people shoot guns inside their homes all the time, and they aren't arrested.
Wow!
But Oklahoma City's Municipal Code says discharging a firearm in the city is a misdemeanor. (Ch. 30, Art. X, § 30-308)
A state statute makes it a felony, punishable by two to 20 years in prison, "for anyone to willfully or intentionally discharge any firearm or other deadly weapon at or into any dwelling, or at or into any building used for public or business purposes." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 21, § 1289.17A)
Nelson said the officer is on administrative leave and the department's internal affairs unit is investigating whether a crime occurred.
Nelson refused to release the officer's name, blaming that decision on city attorneys.
The state Open Records Act requires police to release "initial offense report information showing the offense, date, time, general location, officer, and a brief summary of what occurred." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 21, § 24A.8(A)(3))
The statute allows police to release other information on an incident. (§ 24A.8(B))
But Nelson told the newspaper:
You have already provided a 'brief summary' of the incident. Additional details are not required. Since the subject was not taken to jail, arrestee information does not exist.
The bottom line is that Oklahoma City Police Department officials don't want the public to know which of their officers fired a gun in a residential neighborhood and then was taken to a hospital to have his mental health evaluated.
Nothing in the Open Records Act prohibits police from releasing the name as part of the incident report.
The name of anyone who fires a gun in a residential area should be included in the summary of what occurred. It's even more important because it was a police officer who fired a weapon close to an elementary school.
"Police officers must be held to a higher standard of moral and ethical values then[sic] is expected of the average person. Police officers need the trust and respect of the public to perform their duties and responsibilities effectively."
(Richard W. DeShon, Police Officers Oath of Office and Codes of Ethics: A Question of Knowledge, 2000)
Instead, Oklahoma City police officials are twisting the Open Records Act to create a loophole so they can hide which of their officers fired his weapon in a neighborhood while acting strangely.
The City Council should expect police officials to be more forthright with its citizens.
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.
The Tulsa World and Owasso Reporter received copies Monday of police videos showing an arrest that led to the firing of an Owasso police officer who was recently reinstated by an arbitrator.
The city had refused the newspapers' requests for a copy of lapel camera video showing a police lieutenant using what the city deemed was excessive force and for which he was fired.
The Tulsa World sued the city in December for access to the video. The lawsuit is pending, the newspaper reported Monday.
At the time, City Manager Rodney J. Ray said the public interest in releasing the videos didn't outweigh the reasons for denying access.
On Monday, Ray told the Tulsa World that "we are in complete agreement that this is an open record."
He also told the newspaper that the footage was released because of the arbitrator’s ruling last week and because the man arrested in the video had released the city from liability over the disclosure.
Ray said the release of arrest videos by other cities had also changed his mind.
In denying the request, Ray and the city had argued that 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 and the city contended that the public interest was outweighed by the officer's right to appeal his termination to the city's Personnel Board and to seek binding arbitration.
Monday's release is the second time in eight months that Owasso has provided police video after being sued.
In December, city officials agreed to release 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 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 had reported.
Access to videos of arrests has been an issue elsewhere in the state.
In March, a Washington County judge ordered Bartlesville police to provide the local newspaper with a copy of hospital surveillance video that had led to the arrest of two officers in December.
That decision contrasted with a Rogers County judge's decision in August that the Claremore Police Department's dash-cam recordings are not public records. But the judge 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.
A year ago, Catoosa decided to release its police department's audio and video recordings after the city was sued for access. Officials agreed that the recordings "are subject to the Open Records Act."
In 2004, the state Supreme Court held that Department of Public Safety recordings of administrative hearings contained facts concerning arrests and therefore were open under the Open Records Act. (Fabian & Assoc., P.C., v. State ex. rel. Dept. of Public Safety, 2004 OK 67, ¶ 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."
Those tapes were recordings of administrative hearings concerning the revocation of drivers' licenses.
Certainly the same reasoning applies to the police recordings of actual 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.
Oklahoma Supreme Court justices on Tuesday unanimously denied a district attorney's request to delay enforcement of a judge's order releasing a video showing a confrontation in a local hospital emergency room between four Bartlesville police officers and a handcuffed patient.
The one-line order isn't surprising given that the Bartlesville Examiner-Enterprise received a copy of the hospital surveillance video in March and posted it online.
However, Washington County District Attorney Kevin Buchanan's appeal of District Judge Curtis L. DeLapp's ruling remains alive.
Buchanan had asked DeLapp to suspend his order against the Bartlesville police so Buchanan could appeal it. DeLapp refused, saying that Buchanan had no standing because the order didn't apply to him.
The city attorney and Buchanan had 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 "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 did contain such information, the patient had 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.
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 late April, the state Supreme Court denied Buchanan's petition declaring he has the right to appeal DeLapp's decision. But the one-line order agreed to by all the justices didn't offer an explanation. And Buchanan already had appealed the order releasing the video.
The 44-minute video shows a confrontation in a local hospital emergency room between four Bartlesville police officers and a handcuffed 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 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.
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.
The Oklahoma Highway Patrol recently told a newspaper that blood-alcohol test results can't be released because of a federal statute blocking access to personal information on driver's licenses.
But an attorney general opinion and court cases in other states indicate that the Driver's Privacy Protection Act does not prohibit the release of such information.
In refusing the request, the OHP cited two state statutes:
- 51 O.S. §24A.5(1)(c), which exempts "personal information within driver records as defined by the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act, 18 United States Code, Sections 2721 through 2725."
- 47 O.S. §6-117(C)(1)(b), which says, "The Department [of Public Safety] shall not be required to furnish personal information from the collision report which is contrary to the provisions of the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act, 18 United States Code, Sections 2721 through 2725."
The Driver’s Privacy Protection Act defines "personal information" as "information that identifies an individual, including an individual's photograph, social security number, driver identification number, name, address (but not the 5-digit zip code), telephone number, and medical or disability information, but does not include information on vehicular accidents, driving violations, and driver's status." (18 U.S.C. § 2725(3))
It defines "highly restricted personal information" as "an individual's photograph or image, social security number, medical or disability information." ((18 USC sec. 2725(4)) This information can be disclosed "without the express consent of the person" for some purposes. ((18 U.S.C. sec. 2721(a)(2))
Medical information collected for a driver’s license would seem to be whether eyeglasses are needed.
But even if the results of a blood-alcohol test were considered "highly personal information" somehow not included in the exemption for "vehicular accidents, driving violations, and driver's status," the DPPA still wouldn't block all public access.
Under the statute, "personal information" and "highly restricted personal information" may be used "by any government agency, including any court or law enforcement agency, in carrying out its functions." (18 U.S.C. § 2721(b)(1))
In 2008, Wisconsin's attorney general concluded, "Responding to public records requests is a required function of law enforcement agencies." (2008 Wisc. AG Lexis 8, at *35)
The DPPA's "permissible use by government agencies in carrying out their functions allows disclosure of personal information and highly personal information in law enforcement records in response to public records requests -- regardless of the nature of the matter in connection with which law enforcement requested the information from the DMV, so long as it was requested in pursuance of the law enforcement agency's official duties and functions," the opinion concluded. (Id. at **33-34)
Of course, blood-alcohol tests aren't conducted when a driver's license is issued in Oklahoma. The results aren't information that law enforcement officers request from the state Department of Public Safety when making a traffic stop or investigating an accident.
Instead, breath tests can be conducted on the scene by the law enforcement agency, such as during a sobriety checkpoint. For example, the Oklahoma County Sheriff's Office, Oklahoma City police and Oklahoma Highway Patrol reported making 28 DUI arrests during a metro sobriety checkpoint and "saturation patrol" this past Saturday night.
To be covered by the DPPA, personal and highly personal information must have been collected by the state agency "in connection with a motor vehicle record," which the statute defines as "any record that pertains to a motor vehicle's operator's permit, motor vehicle title, motor vehicle registration, or identification card issued by a department of motor vehicles." (18 USC sec. 2725(1))
In 2002, a federal judge in Colorado ruled that an accident report obtained from the Colorado State Patrol was not a "motor vehicle record" within the meaning of the DPPA. (Mattivi v. Russell, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24409 (D. Colo. Aug. 2, 2002))
The judge rejected the plaintiff's claim that "an accident report is a motor vehicle record because it pertains to a person's ability to drive and own a car and because it could affect a driver's license or title to a vehicle." (Id. at *9)
He also concluded that "the plain language of exception in section 2725(e) makes clear that Congress did not intend 'information on vehicular accidents' to be included within the Act's prohibition of disclosure of "personal information." (Id. at *14)
Relying in part on that ruling, a federal judge in Illinois in 2008 said, "Quite simply, Congress chose to specifically make the DPPA apply to records coming from the DMV and pertaining to a motor vehicle license or permit." (Lake v. Neal, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75090, at *8 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 29, 2008))
Likewise, the Wisconsin attorney general emphasized that the DPPA pertains to information sought from a motor vehicle department by law enforcement officers as they do their jobs.
For example, the opinion said reading the DPPA "so restrictively that law enforcement agencies would be precluded from carrying out public records functions, including redisclosing personal information obtained from the state DMV and used in law enforcement reports, would serve neither of the specific purposes identified by Congress for enacting the DPPA: crime-fighting, and controlling commercial use of driver information in driver records held by DMVs." (2008 Wisc. AG Lexis 8, at *20)
"Instead, it would subvert the important governmental objective of facilitating public oversight of police investigations, impair public confidence in law enforcement activities, and do exactly what Congress intended to avoid -- impede execution by law enforcement officers of their legitimate public duties and responsibilities," the opinion said.
In other words, the statute does not block public access to information created by the law enforcement agencies in the performance of their duties and in reports related to vehicular accidents and driving violations.
The results of blood-alcohol tests would seem to fall into this category of 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.
The state Supreme Court last week denied a district attorney's petition declaring he has the right to appeal a district judge's order that Bartlesville police provide the local newspaper with a copy of hospital surveillance video that led to the arrest of two officers in December.
But the one-line order agreed to by all the justices didn't offer an explanation.
And Washington County District Attorney Kevin Buchanan already has appealed District Judge Curtis L. DeLapp's decision.
The Bartlesville Examiner-Enterprise this week filed a motion asking the court to dismiss Buchanan's appeal.
The newspaper had filed an 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 of the video that led to two police officers being charged with assaulting a handcuffed patient.
DeLapp ruled March 12 that Bartlesville police had to provide the video, but he did not decide whether Buchanan had to as well.
On March 16, Buchanan asked DeLapp to suspend his order against the police so Buchanan could appeal it. DeLapp refused, saying that Buchanan had no standing because the order didn't apply to him.
The Bartlesville Examiner-Enterprise received a copy of the hospital surveillance video on March 16 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.
On March 18, the newspaper 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."
On March 23, Buchanan filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the appellate court. He wanted the state Supreme Court to suspend DeLapp's order and grant him standing to appeal it.
Before getting an answer from the court, Buchanan filed the appeal on April 4.
The court's denial of Buchanan's petition for standing "could mean either that the court doesn't believe the DA has standing or it could mean that the court just doesn't see the writ as being the proper procedure to raise the issue and it expects to deal with standing/mootness in the appeal itself," said media attorney Robert Nelon of Hall Estill.
Nelon is representing FOI Oklahoma, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and the Oklahoma Society for Professional Journalists Pro Chapter, which are asking permission to file as amici curiae in the case.
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.
Oklahoma City Community College's campus newspaper has detailed in a two-part series several apparent violations of the state Open Records Act and the federal Clery Act by school officials.
Last week, The Pioneer reported that OCCC officials have cited three federal statutes -- the Family Educational Rights & Privacy Act, the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act -- as reasons for not releasing police records.
National experts disagreed that those statute prohibit the release of information by campus police.
For example, FERPA exempts law enforcement records, which the statute defines as records created by the law enforcement unit for a law enforcement purpose and maintained by the law enforcement unit.
Such records "are not 'education records' subject to the privacy protections of FERPA," says the U.S. Department of Education. "As such, the law enforcement unit ... may disclose law enforcement unit records to third parties without the eligible student's prior written consent."
Meanwhile, the Open Records Act requires that police records provide the name, date of birth, address, race, sex, physical description, and occupation of people arrested. (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.8(A)(1))
Yet, the newspaper reported, OCCC officials blacked out on a police report the name and other identifying information for a student arrested after he was reported to be sharpening a knife in class and then threatening classmates and the professor.
According to the newspaper, OCCC Media Relations Coordinator Cordell Jordan also has cited HIPAA and the ADA as reasons to redact information or withhold reports when campus police respond to accidents and injuries. OCCC attorney Nancy Gerrity defended that reasoning.
But the Student Press Law Center's attorney said campus officials are "misinformed, lying, or both" if they cite FERPA, HIPAA and the ADA as reasons not to release information in police reports.
"HIPAA applies to organizations that have a primary business of providing health care, insurance, or electronic records transactions for those companies; obviously, law enforcement has a primary business of enforcing the law and thus, none of its records are HIPAA records,” Adam Goldstein told the newspaper.
"The ADA isn't a privacy statute at all," he said. "It’s an anti-discrimination statute.
"It requires employers to treat individuals with qualified disabilities fairly and make reasonable accommodations for their disabilities.
"It has nothing whatsoever to do with records of any kind or the release of those records. If someone is citing the ADA as a basis for not releasing records, they're not even misinterpreting the law, they're just saying the names of laws they’ve heard that sound kind of official."
Student Press Law Center Executive Director Frank D. LoMonte agreed that HIPAA, FERPA and the ADA are not valid reasons for withholding campus police reports.
"First of all, HIPAA is almost always a false justification for refusing to turn over public records. HIPAA applies only to two types of people: Health care professionals, or insurers," LoMonte told the newspaper.
"If the college has someone's medical information because that person, for example, committed a crime or was injured in an accident, the college is in no way restricted by HIPAA from releasing that information. HIPAA is not a blanket health care secrecy law — it applies only to your doctor or your medical insurance carrier, not to colleges.
"FERPA is never, ever a valid reason for a college to withhold or redact crime reports, period," he said.
LoMonte told The Pioneer that citing the ADA as a "justification for withholding public records is so frivolous that it almost seems like it must be a joke."
This week, The Pioneer also reported that OCCC officials have taken weeks and months to provide public records.
For example, the newspaper said, the police report regarding the student arrested for sharpening a knife in class and threatening others was provided three weeks after the incident.
The Clery Act, however, requires that such incidences be reported on a publicly available crime log within two business days of their initial report to the campus police or the campus security department.
The Pioneer also provided examples of lengthy delays for non-police records.
Under the Open Records Act, "A public body must provide prompt, reasonable access to its records...." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.5(5))
A 1999 attorney general opinion stated succinctly that "prompt, reasonable access" generally means "only the time required to locate and compile" the public records. (1999 OK AG 58, ¶ 15)
Oklahoma public agencies and officials have a "duty" to provide public records to the public.
Then-Attorney General Drew Edmondson said:
The purpose of the 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.' To fulfill this purpose the Act imposes a duty on a public body to 'provide prompt, reasonable access to its records' and make a person available to release records during the public body's regular business hours. (2005 OK AG 3, ¶ 4)
In a 2005 public records training video for police, Edmondson acknowledged that the time in which agencies must respond "varies with the circumstances."
But he also distinguished between "a detailed request for records that's going to require looking back over the past 12 months and pulling files that may already be in storage" and one for records "that are sitting right there on your desk and all you have to do is go to the copy machine."
"In most instances," he said, "open records requests should be responded to on the spot."
The Pioneer also noted that all records requests must be made to the OCCC Marketing and Public Relations office, a process that only delays access.
Funneling all media requests for records through one office runs contrary to a 2005 attorney general opinion requiring that government documents be made available where they "are located in the ordinary course of business."
"If a public body has more than one office location, its records must be maintained and made available to the public at the office where the records are located in the ordinary course of business," Edmondson said. (2005 OK AG 3, ¶ 10)
"The Act does not expressly address at what office location records must be maintained and made available to the public if a public body has more than one office location. It is our opinion that the 'prompt, reasonable access' to records that the public must be provided under the Act indicates the Legislature's intent that the public body's records shall be maintained and available at the office where the records are located in the ordinary course of business,” he said. (Id. ¶ 8)
LoMonte told the newspaper that delayed access indicates the low level of importance that OCCC officials place on being held accountable to the public.
It also indicates how little respect OCCC officials have for students, faculty, staff and the general public.
OCCC administrators act as though they are running a high school or a private college. But this is a publicly funded college.
Students, faculty and other taxpayers are entitled to know about what happens on campus, particularly when it involves police.
OCCC officials, however, are treating college journalists with the same disrespect that many high school administrators show for their students.
Kudos to The Pioneer editors and reporters for standing up for the public's right and need to know. But they'll need help if OCCC officials' attitudes and practices are to change.
Local and federal officials have an obligation to investigate what the newspaper has reported and to hold OCCC officials accountable for violations of state and federal law.
Local media also have an obligation to help by spreading the word to a larger audience. Back up these college journalists. Don't stand by while they are bullied by government officials.
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.
I sincerely appreciate the basic message of The Oklahoman's editorial on Monday that police departments must follow the state Open Records Act.
The editorial, however, indicates that release of incident reports is subject to judicial review under the Open Records Act.
It is not.
The Open Records Act requires law enforcement agencies to make incident reports and other specified information available for public inspection. (Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 24A.8(A)(1-8))
Police departments are given no leeway regarding these records.
Law enforcement agencies may deny access to other 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))
Contrary to the editorial, that is not a step that police have skipped. The burden is on the person seeking the records to ask a court to rule in favor of access.
The problem in Edmond and elsewhere involved police departments claiming that incident reports are part of investigatory files that may be withheld from the public at the discretion of the law enforcement agencies.
Incident reports are not part of such investigatory files.
As Attorney General Scott Pruitt recently agreed, the Open Records Act clearly distinguishes between incident report information that must be made available for inspection when requested and investigatory files that may be closed to the public
The Open Records Act states, "Access to records which, under the Oklahoma Open Records Act, would otherwise be available for public inspection and copying, shall not be denied because a public body or public official is using or has taken possession of such records for investigatory purposes or has placed the records in a litigation or investigation file." (Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 24A.20)
As Pruitt agreed, incident reports must be made available to the public when requested.
The Open Records Act does not empower law enforcement agencies to ask a court to block public access to incident reports.
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.
State Attorney General Scott Pruitt wants police to know that initial incident reports may not be withheld from the public as part of investigatory files.
"The state Legislature has made it clear in this regard that a police department's initial offense report or 'cover sheet' should be open for public inspection, regardless of its inclusion in an investigation file," Pruitt said in a letter being distributed to local departments.
FOI Oklahoma Inc. asked Pruitt in late November to notify police departments that incident report information must be released when requested.
The Edmond Police Department and others in the state were refusing to provide incident reports, claiming they were part of files that wouldn't be released until investigations were completed.
That reasoning is at odds with the Oklahoma Open Records Act, which clearly distinguishes between incident reports and investigatory files. The statute states:
A. Law enforcement agencies shall make available for public inspection, if kept, the following records:
1. An arrestee description, including the name, date of birth, address, race, sex, physical description, and occupation of the arrestee;
2. Facts concerning the arrest, including the cause of arrest and the name of the arresting officer;
3. 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)(1-8))
The statute also states:
Access to records which, under the Oklahoma Open Records Act, would otherwise be available for public inspection and copying, shall not be denied because a public body or public official is using or has taken possession of such records for investigatory purposes or has placed the records in a litigation or investigation file.
(OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.20)
The state Legislature drew a clear distinction between incident report information that must be made available for inspection when requested and investigatory files that may be closed to the public, argued FOI Oklahoma Inc.
FOI Oklahoma's complaint wasn't the only one received by Pruitt regarding access to initial incident reports.
Pruitt said that during open government workshops this fall, his staff heard of police departments withholding the reports or delaying release "for up to a week after the incident occurred."
In Pruitt's letter Wednesday to the Oklahoma Association of Chiefs of Police, he urged the organization to discuss the Open Records Act provisions "with police chiefs and law enforcement officers across the state to ensure they are aware of the statutes and can avoid unintended complications...."
The association will forward the letter to local police departments, Pruitt's spokeswoman Diane Clay said Sunday.
Such an explanation shouldn't be necessary because the Open Records Act is clear in this regard.
But Thank You to Pruitt for telling police to abide by the law.
Pruitt is a member of the FOI Oklahoma Inc. Board of Directors. The nonprofit is a statewide coalition advocating for open government.
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.
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.
Oklahoma's Open Records Act doesn't require state universities and colleges to keep a public log of reported crimes.
But a federal law does.
The Clery Act requires public and private post-secondary schools that receive federal funding and maintain a police or security department to keep a daily crime log that is open to public inspection and is readily understandable. (34 CFR 668.46(f)) (20 USC §1092(f)(4)(A)(B))
The statute also imposes a number of important conditions on those crime logs that differ from the Open Records Act's requirements for such records, including:
- Crimes must be added to the log within two business days of their initial report to the campus police or the campus security department.
- This time requirement also covers any addition to an entry or change in the disposition of a complaint. For example, federal education officials note, if the disposition of a crime is "pending" and an arrest is made later, the school has two business days to update the disposition on the original entry.
- Schools aren’t required to update dispositions for crimes more than 60 days old.
- A business day is defined Monday through Friday, except for days when the school is closed.
- The only exceptions to this rule are if the disclosure is prohibited by law or would jeopardize the confidentiality of the victim.
- The log is required to include the nature, date (occurred and reported), time and general location of each crime, and its disposition if known.
- The description of the location must mean something to the campus community.
- But the location must not lead to identification of the victim.
- Victims' names must be redacted. This requirement supersedes the state Open Records Act, which has no such provision.
- Schools may temporarily withhold information only if there is clear and convincing evidence that the release of information would:
- Jeopardize an ongoing investigation;
- Jeopardize the safety of an individual;
- Cause a suspect to flee or evade detection; or
- Result in the destruction of evidence.
- The school may withhold only the information that could cause the adverse effect.
- That information must be disclosed once the adverse effect is no longer likely.
- The person deciding to withhold the information should document the reason.
- The crime log for the most-recent 60 days must be open to public inspection, upon request, during normal business hours.
- Schools may not require a written request.
- Anyone may have access to the log, including media not associated with the school.
- Logs older than 60 days must be made available for inspection within two business days of the request.
ADDITIONAL SOURCES:
Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Media & Strategic Communications
