Your Right to Public Records in Oklahoma: What Cities and Counties Must Produce

Cities, counties, sheriff's offices, and jails keep records about what they do. In Oklahoma, those records generally belong to the public. The Oklahoma Open Records Act, found at Title 51, Section 24A.1 and following, starts from the principle that people have a right to know and be fully informed about their government. When a citizen asks the right way, the government has a legal duty to respond, and it cannot simply refuse without a valid legal basis.

What the law requires

The Act requires public bodies to give prompt, reasonable access to their records. Unlike the federal Freedom of Information Act, Oklahoma's law does not set a fixed number of days to respond. That flexibility is not a license to stall. A request that sits unanswered for months, or gets answered only after repeated follow-ups, can be a violation.

Who has to comply

The Act covers state agencies, counties, cities and towns, school districts, and other public bodies, along with entities that spend or are supported by public funds. That includes county sheriffs and the jails they run. Certain law enforcement records, such as jail registers and basic information about arrests and incidents, are specifically required to be available, subject to some exceptions.

How to make a proper request

Put the request in writing, even if the agency accepts phone or in-person requests. Address it to the records custodian or the agency's designated contact. Describe the records as specifically as you can, including dates, names, case or booking numbers, and the type of record you want. Keep a copy of the request and note when and how you sent it. A clear, specific request is harder to delay and easier to enforce.

Fees and exceptions

Agencies can charge reasonable copying fees set by statute, and they can charge search fees only in limited circumstances. Some records are confidential or may be withheld under specific exceptions written into the law. But the exceptions are the exception. If an agency withholds something, it should be able to point to the provision that allows it and explain why it applies.

Ross v. City of Owasso: seven years to get one report

I know how hard a public body can fight a records request, because I represented Owasso City Councilor Patrick Ross in a case that took seven years and two trips through Oklahoma's appellate courts.

In 2013, Owasso's longtime city manager resigned after an outside investigation into alleged misconduct. The investigator's findings were written up in what became known as the Fortney Report. The City Council approved a substantial severance package, even though the city manager's contract required him to forfeit severance if he was let go for cause. Councilor Ross objected to spending public money that way and asked for the report. The city refused, calling it a confidential personnel record. In August 2013, Ross sued under the Open Records Act and the Open Meeting Act. The city responded by countersuing him, alleging that he had breached confidentiality by filing his lawsuit.

In June 2016, the district court granted summary judgment to the city. We appealed. In Ross v. City of Owasso, 2017 OK CIV APP 4, the Court of Civil Appeals held that the report was a personnel record the city had discretion to keep confidential or release, but that the City Council, the body that actually held that discretion, had never exercised it. The decision to withhold had been made without a council vote. The case went back, the council voted to deny the request, and we appealed again.

In 2020, in Ross v. City of Owasso, 2020 OK CIV APP 66, the Court of Civil Appeals reversed. It held that the request went to a central question of good government, whether substantial public funds were improperly paid out, and that the balance clearly favored disclosure. Because the city failed to carry its burden of showing a valid reason to keep the report secret, the court sent the case back with instructions to order the city to comply with Ross's request.

The Tulsa World covered the 2020 ruling in Appellate court: City of Owasso ordered to turn over investigative report kept from public, and the Owasso Reporter covered the suit when it was filed in Ross sues city, seeks Fortney report. More coverage of the case is collected on our In the News page.

What Ross means for every records request

Ross stands for a few principles that matter to anyone asking for public records. The public body carries the burden of justifying a refusal, not the citizen. Discretionary exemptions, like the one for certain personnel records, have to be exercised by the body that actually holds that discretion, not decided informally by an official acting alone. And when records bear on how public money is spent or whether public officials acted properly, the public interest weighs heavily in favor of disclosure.

When the government does not respond

If a public body ignores a proper request or refuses without a valid legal basis, the Act allows the requester to go to court to enforce it. A requester who prevails can recover reasonable attorney fees, which is one reason agencies tend to take enforcement seriously once a lawyer is involved. As Ross shows, these fights can take persistence, but the law is on the side of the citizen who asks the right way.

Why records matter in our cases

Much of our civil rights work depends on records: jail logs, booking records, incident reports, policies, and staffing information. The evidence that shows how a jail really operates is often the same evidence that gets lost or overwritten if nobody asks for it early. Open records requests and litigation discovery work together, and knowing when to use each one can make a real difference.

If a city, county, or sheriff's office is ignoring your records request, or you need records to understand what happened to you or a family member, call Garrett Law at (918) 221-6190 or request a free consultation.

This post is general information, not legal advice. Every case turns on its own facts, and past results do not guarantee a similar outcome.