OKLAHOMA ASSOC. OF BROADCASTERS, INC. v. CITY OF NORMAN
2016 OK 119
| Okla. | 2016Background
- On July 25, 2014 a restaurant surveillance video captured Joe Mixon striking a woman; Norman Police reviewed and retained a copy. A detective filed an affidavit of probable cause and the Cleveland County DA filed a misdemeanor information referencing the same incident.
- On August 18, 2014 Mixon voluntarily appeared in district court, was arraigned, and the court ordered him held in custody (processed by the sheriff) pending bond.
- The Oklahoma Association of Broadcasters (OAB) and a member station sought the surveillance video under the Oklahoma Open Records Act (51 O.S. § 24A.1 et seq.). Defendants (City/Police/DA) denied providing a copy; Department allowed media to view the video once but did not provide copies to OAB.
- OAB filed for declaratory judgment and mandamus seeking a copy. The district court (after viewing the video in camera at the hearing) granted defendants’ motion to dismiss; the court ordered the video preserved as part of the court record.
- The Court of Civil Appeals held no arrest occurred for purposes of § 24A.8(A)(2) and remanded for a public-interest balancing under § 24A.8(B). The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari, held Mixon was arrested for Act’s purposes, and ruled the Act entitles OAB to a copy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mixon was "arrested" under § 24A.8(A)(2) | Court-ordered custody at arraignment is an arrest because it restrains liberty and holds the defendant to answer | An "arrest" requires nonconsensual seizure and (per statute) an arrest by a police officer; voluntary court appearance is not an arrest | Held: The court-ordered custody constituted an arrest for purposes of the Act; submission to custody at sheriff's office also satisfies statutory arrest definition |
| Whether the surveillance video is a “record” containing facts concerning the arrest | Video is a record memorializing facts that caused the arrest and falls within the Act's broad definition of record | Video may be part of litigation file or exhibit and not subject to open copying | Held: Video is a record of facts concerning the arrest and must be made available under § 24A.8(A) (also ordered preserved as part of the court record) |
| Whether § 24A.8(A) requires only "inspection" (no copying) or also copying | "Inspection" in § 24A.8(A) must be read to include copying, consistent with §§ 24A.5–.6 and legislative purpose of broad access | § 24A.8(A) uses "inspection" only; law enforcement could limit copying | Held: Reconciling the Act, inspection includes the right to obtain copies; defendants must allow copying (and costs governed by § 24A.5) |
| Whether defendants met burden to deny access (exceptions/balancing) | N/A (plaintiff argued no applicable exception) | Law enforcement may deny access or balance public interest under § 24A.8(B) | Held: Defendants failed to show an exception; no balancing denial sustained—OAB entitled to copy; other defendants’ arguments not reached as not preserved |
Key Cases Cited
- Fabian & Associates, P.C. v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Public Safety, 100 P.3d 703 (Okla. 2004) (Act’s definition of record is broad enough to include audio/video recordings)
- Heldermon v. Wright, 152 P.3d 855 (Okla. 2006) (statutory construction focuses on legislative intent and public-access policy)
- Citizens Against Taxpayer Abuse, Inc. v. City of Oklahoma City, 73 P.3d 871 (Okla. 2003) (burden on public agency to justify denial of access under the Open Records Act)
- Chandler (U.S.A.), Inc. v. Tyree, 87 P.3d 598 (Okla. 2004) (standards for mandamus relief)