Owasso releases police videos to newspapers; Official now says arrest videos are public records

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.

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

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.