by Douglas Ankney

In a case of first impression, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma held that a Jail Trust is not a law enforcement agency and cannot withhold requested records under the law enforcement exemption of Oklahoma’s Open Records Act (ORA), 51 O.S. 2022 §§ 24A.1 et seq.

On August 8, 2023, bail bondsman James Lawson requested records from the Leflore County Detention Center (LCDC) surrounding an incident that involved the jailer cursing and verbally abusing Lawson’s ex-wife, Amber, as she waited for two prisoners’ bond applications to be processed. The LCDC is operated by the Lawson County Detention Center Jail Trust (“Jail Trust”) and, pursuant to the ORA, Lawson requested the Jail Trust to disclose to him, inter alia, all audio and video recordings of the incident.

The following month, the Jail Trust responded that it would not release the requested records as it was exercising the law enforcement exemption of the ORA. That same month, Lawson filed a “Petition for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief for Violation of the Oklahoma Open Records Act” and a “Writ of Mandamus” in the district court. Lawson asserted that the Jail Trust is a “public body” subject to the ORA but that the Jail Trust was not a “law enforcement agency” as defined by the ORA and could not, therefore, refuse to disclose the requested records under the law enforcement exemption.

The Jail Trust answered, agreeing that it was a public body but argued it fell under the definition of “law enforcement agency” and “disclosure of requested information was therefore not mandatory but instead discretionary under the ORA.” The Jail Trust based its argument on the fact that it operated a county jail and had the same duties as a jail operated by the county sheriff. Both parties moved for summary judgment.

The district court sided with the Jail Trust and granted summary judgment in its favor. Lawson appealed. On January 31, 2025, the Oklahoma Supreme Court retained the matter on its own motion to address whether the Jail Trust qualifies as “a law enforcement agency” under the ORA’s definition in 51 O.S. 2022, § 24A.3(5).

The Court observed “[r]esolution of the issue turns on construction of the term ‘law enforcement agency’ defined in the ORA. When a statute contains a definition, it is binding on the courts.” See: McClure v. ConocoPhillips Co, 142 P.3d 390 (Okla. 2006). “Law enforcement agency” is defined in 51 O.S. 2022, § 24A.3(5) as “any public body charged with enforcing state or local criminal laws and initiating criminal prosecutions including, but not limited to, police departments, county sheriffs, the Department of Public Safety, the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drug Control, the Alcoholic Beverage Laws Enforcement Commission, and the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation.”

And “public body,” pursuant to 51 O.S. 2022, § 24A.3,(2), “shall include, but not be limited to, any office department, board, bureau, commission, agency, trusteeship, authority, council, committee, trust or any entity created by a trust, county, city, village, town, township, district, school district, fair board, court, executive office, advisory group, task force, study group or any subdivision thereof, supported in whole or in part by public funds or entrusted with the expenditure of public funds or administering or operating public property, and all committees, or subcommittees thereof….” The Court concluded that the Jail Trust satisfied the definition of “public body” because it was a “public trust” created pursuant to 60 O.S. 2022, §§ 176 et seq., and the Jail Trust was funded by LeFlore County, 57 O.S. 2022, § 41.

The Court then addressed whether the Jail Trust was “charged with enforcing state or local criminal laws and initiating criminal prosecutions.” Relying on Black’s Law Dictionary (5th Ed. 1979) (“Black’s Law Dictionary”), the Court concluded that “charged with enforcing” implied “acting to ensure law is followed and violations are addressed.” While it was true that the Jail Trust had the duty to operate a jail which is a duty of the sheriff that was designated to the Jail Trust by law (57 O.S. 2022, § 47), that duty was limited to the custodial services of operating a detention facility. 19 O.S. 2022, § 513.2(A).

Nothing in that statute conferred upon the Jail Trust “any peace-officer status.” “Notably,” the Court wrote, “each of the enumerated examples in the definition have peace officer status or agents while the Jail Trust is specifically excluded.” Id., § 513.2(D). The Court concluded that the Jail Trust “is not ‘charged with enforcing state or local criminal laws.’”

Likewise, the Jail Trust was not charged with initiating criminal prosecutions. Again, relying on Black’s Law Dictionary, the Court concluded that initiating criminal prosecutions meant “commence, start, originate, introduce.” The Jail Authority neither investigated crimes nor brought charges by indictment or information to initiate criminal prosecutions as required by law. Webber v. State, 239 P. 566 (Okla. 1925).

For the above reasons, the Court held that “the Jail Trust does not meet the definition of ‘law enforcement agency’ under the ORA.” And “[u]nless a record falls within a statutorily prescribed exemption in the [ORA], the record must be made available for public inspection.” Accordingly, the Court reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded for further proceedings. See: Lawson v. LeFlore Co. Detention Center Public Trust Security Comm., 2025 OK 87.  

Additional source: NonDoc Media

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login

Related legal case