 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
City of Lawton v. Moore12/21/1993
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ASSUMED; WRIT OF PROHIBITION GRANTED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: WATT, Justice.
The City of Lawton asks us to assume original jurisdiction and issue a writ prohibiting Respondent, the Honorable Peter Clinton Moore, a District Judge in Comanche County, from proceeding further in a lawsuit that Ron Kirby filed against it.
FACTS
In 1992, Kirby was engaged in a hotly contested runoff election for the Democratic party nomination for a seat in the Oklahoma Legislature. Kirby's opponent in the runoff election was Minnette Page, a Lawton City Council member. Page demanded of Lawton, and was given, Lawton Municipal Court records reflecting Kirby's arrests for driving under the influence of alcohol in 1981, 1982 and 1991. Kirby plead guilty to the 1991 incident, but his guilty plea was later expunged from the record by order of their Municipal Court under 22 O.S. 1991 § 991c . Page demanded, and Lawton furnished, Kirby's arrest records under the Open Records Act, 51 O.S.Supp. 1992 §§ 24A.1 , et seq. Lawton did not give Page a copy of Kirby's 1991 guilty plea that had been expunged from the record.
Following his election to the legislature, Kirby filed a claim for $100,000.00 against Lawton under the Governmental Tort Claims Act, 51 O.S.Supp. 1992 §§ 151 , et seq. Lawton denied Kirby's claim and Kirby brought suit under the Act. Kirby claimed that Lawton was liable to him in tort because Lawton did not satisfy the requirements set forth in Tulsa Tribune Co. v. Oklahoma Horse Racing Commission, 735 P.2d 548 (Okla. 1987). In Tulsa Tribune, we interpreted the Open Records Act, as then cast, to require custodians of public records to give notice and the opportunity to be heard to any person whose interests would be affected by disclosure of public records. We said:
In order that an individual whose interests are affected by a request for disclosure under the Open Records Act might effectively act to protect those interests it is necessary that such individual have notice of the request. . . .
Id., at 555.
Lawton moved to dismiss Kirby's suit on the ground that the 1988 amendments to the Open Records Act relieved public bodies of the obligation to follow any procedures for allowing access to public records not expressly required by statute, and that no statute requires notice and hearing as specified in Tulsa Tribune. Respondent Judge denied Lawton's motion to dismiss. Lawton then filed its application requesting that we assume original jurisdiction and a petition asking that we prohibit Respondent Judge from proceeding further because the judge's refusal to dismiss the case was an abuse of judicial power.
DISCUSSION
At the next legislative session after our opinion in Tulsa Tribune, Id., the legislature added to the language of § 24A.2 of the Open Records Act. After an expression of public policy that the people are entitled "to know and be fully informed about their government," the legislature added the following language to § 24A.2:
The Oklahoma Open Records Act shall not create, directly or indirectly, any rights of privacy or any remedies for violation of any rights of privacy; nor shall the Oklahoma Open Records Act, except as specifically set forth in the Oklahoma Open Records Act, establish any procedures for protecting any person from release of information contained in public records. . . . The privacy interests of individuals are adequately protected in the specific exceptions to the Oklahoma Open Records Act or in the statutes which authorize, create or requir
Page 1 2 3 Oklahoma DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|