BRASSFIELD v. STATE, 544 P.3d 938

Andrew Dale Brassfield sought expungement of his criminal records in Rogers County, Oklahoma, under 22 O.S. Supp. 2022, § 18(A).
The Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation (OSBI) objected, claiming Brassfield was ineligible due to ongoing federal and tribal investigations resulting from a dismissed state charge (Case No. CF-2021-65).
The state court dismissed the new charge based on lack of jurisdiction (because Brassfield is a member of the Cherokee Tribe and the alleged conduct took place in Indian Country).
The district court denied expungement, ruling Brassfield had 'pending charges'; the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed.
Brassfield appealed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, which vacated the Court of Civil Appeals' opinion, reversed the district court, and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are ongoing investigations 'pending charges' under §18(A)?	Investigations aren't pending charges; only filed charges count.	Ongoing investigations suffice as 'pending charges' barring expungement.	Ongoing investigations aren’t 'pending charges' under the statute.
Does loss of state jurisdiction prevent charge from being 'refiled'?	State prosecutor can’t refile; that satisfies statute.	Mere lack of jurisdiction isn't enough—the prosecutor hasn’t "confirmed" non-refiling.	State's loss of jurisdiction meets the statutory requirement; agency can't refile.
Did Brassfield meet all expungement eligibility criteria?	Yes; all charges dismissed, none pending, no convictions.	No, because requirements for no pending charges and no potential to refile unmet.	Plaintiff satisfied statutory criteria to seek expungement.
Should the expungement be granted or considered further?	Yes; no legal reason remains to bar expungement.	No; public interest and ongoing investigations should block it.	Remanded to weigh harm to privacy vs. public interest, with expungement eligibility established.

State ex rel. Protective Health Servs. State Dep’t of Health v. Vaughn, 222 P.3d 1058 (Okla. 2009) (describes de novo standard for statutory interpretation)
Hoover v. State, 29 P.3d 591 (Okla. Crim. App. 2001) (prima facie showing of harm when statutory expungement criteria met)
United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Briscoe, 239 P.2d 754 (Okla. 1951) (plain meaning rule in statutory construction)
In re Initiative Petition No. 397, 326 P.3d 496 (Okla. 2014) (legislative intent found through statutory plain meaning)
State of Oklahoma v. McMahon, 959 P.2d 607 (Okla. Civ. App. 1998) (burden-shifting upon prima facie eligibility for expungement)