 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
City of Lawton v. Moore12/21/1993
efore turning over records. The Act does not require notice and hearing as a prerequisite to releasing records. Thus, Kirby had no right to notice and hearing before Lawton released the public records of his arrests.
III.
The Municipal Court's Order Expunging Kirby's 1991 Guilty
Plea Did Not Estop Lawton From Furnishing Page a Copy of the
1991 Arrest Records
(Kirby's Proposition Three)
Kirby argues that Lawton should be estopped to claim it had the right to give Page Kirby's 1991 arrest record because the municipal judge had expunged Kirby's guilty plea. We reject this contention. The statute allowing expunging of a deferred sentence, as the municipal judge did, is 22 O.S. 1991 § 991c . The Court of Criminal Appeals interpreted § 991c as not authorizing expungement of arrest records in State ex rel. Hicks v. Freeman, 795 P.2d 110, 113 (Okl.Cr. 1990). In Hicks, the court said, "we find that the legislature did not intend for § 991c to serve as authority for expunction of arrest records."
The municipal judge acted consistently with the requirements of § 991c and expunged only the record of Kirby's guilty plea. The municipal judge did not purport to expunge the 1991 arrest record. The language of the municipal judge's order reflects that the order did nothing more than expunge the guilty plea. The municipal judge's order said that "the guilty plea previously entered by the defendant is expunged and the case is dismissed with prejudice." [Emphasis added.] Lawton furnished only the 1991 arrest record to Page, not the record of the guilty plea, which the municipal judge had expunged.
Kirby relies on Burdick v. Independent School District, 702 P.2d 48, 53 (Okla. 1985) to support his claim that Lawton should be estopped to assert that the 1991 arrest record was not expunged. Burdick, however is inapplicable to this case. We held in Burdick that a school district, which had allowed a child to attend school in its district, would be estopped to later refuse the student admission on the ground that he was not a resident of the district. Here, by contrast, neither Lawton nor its municipal judge ever purported to expunge the 1991 arrest records.
Lawton had no obligation under the Open Records Act to give Kirby notice and a hearing before Lawton could release records of his arrests. Lawton properly released the records of Kirby's arrests to Page. Accordingly, Respondent Judge is prohibited from proceeding further toward trial with this matter, and is instructed to grant Lawton's motion to dismiss.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ASSUMED; WRIT OF PROHIBITION GRANTED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
HODGES, C.J., and SIMMS, ALMA WILSON and SUMMERS, JJ., concur.
KAUGER, J., concurs in result.
OPALA, Justice, with whom LAVENDER, V.C.J., and HARGRAVE, J., concurring in result.
I would prohibit the Respondent from proceeding further in this cause because the City of Lawton stands immune from civil liability. See 51 O.S. 1991 § 24A.17C .
Page 1 2 3 Oklahoma DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|