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 obtained and reviewed the video and a detective filed a probable-cause affidavit referencing it.
- The Cleveland County District Attorney filed a misdemeanor information charging Mixon; on August 18 Mixon voluntarily appeared for arraignment and the court ordered him processed by the sheriff and held until bond — the court-ordered custody was treated as an arrest for Open Records Act purposes.
- The Oklahoma Association of Broadcasters (OAB) and a member station requested a copy of the surveillance video under the Oklahoma Open Records Act (51 O.S. § 24A.1 et seq.); the police and DA denied providing copies though allowed viewing to some media.
- OAB sued for declaratory relief and mandamus; the district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss (treated as summary judgment after the court considered the video), concluding no "arrest" occurred under § 24A.8(A)(2) and that copying was not required.
- The Court of Civil Appeals partially affirmed and remanded for Section 24A.8(B) balancing; the Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari, held Mixon’s court-ordered custody constituted an arrest under the Act, and ruled the Act entitles the public to obtain a copy of the video.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an "arrest" occurred for purposes of 51 O.S. § 24A.8(A)(2) | Mixon’s court-ordered custody and processing constituted an arrest; video therefore records facts concerning an arrest | An arrest requires nonconsensual custody by police (and must be made by an officer); voluntary appearances are not arrests | Held: court-ordered custody and sheriff processing amount to custody/arrestee status — an "arrest" under the Act; defendants’ narrower definition rejected |
| Whether the surveillance video is a "record" under the Act | Video is a record (Act’s definition includes video) and contains facts concerning the arrest/cause | Not disputed that video is a record; focus on access scope | Held: video is a record containing facts concerning the arrest and must be made available |
| Whether § 24A.8(A) requires providing copies or only inspection | Inspection necessarily includes the right to obtain copies given other Act provisions (§§ 24A.5–.6) and legislative purpose of access | § 24A.8(A) uses the word "inspection" only; thus agencies need not provide copies | Held: "inspection" in § 24A.8(A) is read to include copying to harmonize with §§ 24A.5–.6 and legislative intent; copying required |
| Whether any exception justified denial (balancing under § 24A.8(B)) | OAB entitled to the video absent a demonstrated statutory exception; burden on agency to justify denial | Agencies asserted investigatory/litigation retention and other reasons to deny copying | Held: Defendants failed to show an applicable exception; OAB entitled to copy; mandamus warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Fabian & Assocs. v. State ex rel. Dep't of Pub. Safety, 100 P.3d 703 (Okla. 2004) (construing "record" to include audio/video and holding tapes can be "facts concerning an arrest")
- Heldermon v. Wright, 152 P.3d 855 (Okla. 2006) (statutory-construction principles; legislative intent guides Open Records Act interpretation)
- 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 Act)
- Chandler (U.S.A.), Inc. v. Tyree, 87 P.3d 598 (Okla. 2004) (mandamus standard; entitlement to writ when legal right is clear)