OKLAHOMA ASSOC. OF BROADCASTERS, INC. v. CITY OF NORMAN
2016 OK 119
| Okla. | 2016Background
- July 26, 2014 surveillance video captured Joe Mixon striking a woman; Norman Police obtained and reviewed the video and prepared a probable-cause affidavit.
- Cleveland County District Attorney filed misdemeanor information; Mixon voluntarily appeared, was arraigned, and the court ordered him processed and held in custody pending bond.
- Oklahoma Association of Broadcasters (Association) and KWTV sought a copy of the surveillance video under the Open Records Act (51 O.S. §§ 24A.1–24A.30). Defendants allowed in-court viewing but withheld copies.
- District court heard defendants’ motion to dismiss, viewed the video in camera, concluded no "arrest" occurred for Act purposes, dismissed the petition, but ordered the video preserved as part of the court record.
- Court of Civil Appeals partially reversed; this Court granted certiorari to resolve (1) whether Mixon was "arrested" under the Act and (2) whether the Act required production of a copy of the video.
- Supreme Court held Mixon was in custody (an "arrest" under the Act) and that the Act entitles the public to obtain a copy of a law-enforcement record documenting facts concerning an arrest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a defendant who voluntarily appears and is ordered held pending bond is "arrested" under the Open Records Act | The court-ordered custody/restriction of liberty constitutes an arrest for Act purposes | Arrest requires nonconsensual seizure or must be performed by a police officer; voluntary appearance is not an arrest | Held: court-ordered custody/submission to officer custody is an arrest under the Act; statute construed broadly to favor access |
| Whether the surveillance video is a "record" under the Act | Video is a record memorializing facts concerning the arrest and thus open | Video may be investigatory/litigation material and not subject to copying | Held: video is a record of facts concerning an arrest and falls within the Act’s scope |
| Whether § 24A.8(A) requires only inspection (no copying) of law-enforcement records | Association asked for a copy to permit analysis and repeated review | Defendants argued § 24A.8(A) mandates only inspection, not copying | Held: read in context with §§ 24A.5–24A.6, § 24A.8(A) includes the right to obtain copies; copying required to effectuate legislative intent of public access |
| Whether defendants satisfied burden to deny access/exemption | Association: no applicable exemption; public-interest presumption favors disclosure | Defendants: asserted reasons (investigation, litigation file, custody by third party) | Held: defendants failed to show an applicable exception; Association entitled to writ of mandamus to obtain a copy |
Key Cases Cited
- Fabian & Associates v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 100 P.3d 703 (Okla. 2004) (Act’s definition of record includes audiovisual materials; recordings of proceedings can be "facts concerning an arrest")
- Estate of Hicks v. Urban East, Inc., 92 P.3d 88 (Okla. 2004) (motions to dismiss converted to summary judgment where outside materials considered)
- Pickens v. Tulsa Metropolitan Ministry, 951 P.2d 1079 (Okla. 1997) (standard of de novo review for summary judgment as a question of law)
- Citizens Against Taxpayer Abuse, Inc. v. City of Oklahoma City, 73 P.3d 871 (Okla. 2003) (burden on public agency to justify denial of records under Act)
- Chandler (U.S.A.), Inc. v. Tyree, 87 P.3d 598 (Okla. 2004) (mandamus relief when plaintiff entitled to judgment as a matter of law)