I focused on Paragraph 19 of the Petition, quoting ORA "brief summary of what occurred" language, citing 51 Okla Stat Section 24A.8 (A)(3). Plaintiffs attach a sample "incident report" from Oklahoma City PD to illustrate their point. The pertinent statutory language is quoted below: "A. Law enforcement agencies shall make available for public inspection and copying, if kept, the following records: "1. An arrestee description, including the name, date of birth, address, race, sex, physical description, and occupation of the arrestee; "2. Facts concerning the arrest, including the cause of arrest and the name of the arresting officer; "3. A chronological list of all incidents, including initial offense report information showing the offense, date, time, general location, officer, and a brief summary of what occurred ..." The focus of the reporter's case is on paragraph 3, which is (if kept) a chronological list of offenses, which might include "a brief summary of what occurred." If such list does not exist, or if the summary is not written, that is not a violation. "Except as may be required in Section 24A.4 of this title, this act does not impose any additional recordkeeping requirements on public bodies or public officials." ORA Section 24A.18. What they are actually seeking, however, is the "narrative" of an "arrest report" (as illustrated by their attached "sample" exhibit). Oklahoma City PD released that report pursuant to Paragraph 2, not Paragraph 3. Your analysis is sound, but that does not guarantee a win. I will be very interested in the outcome. Call if you would like to discuss. Orval Edwin Jones Assistant Municipal Counselor City of OKC 701 Couch DR, OKC, OK 73102 405.297.2682 -----Original Message----- Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2024 3:08 PM To: oama@lists.imla.org 1. Fwd: Seeking your response to the lawsuit against Ponca City (John R. Andrew) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2024 23:17:49 +0000 From: "John R. Andrew" <andrejr@poncacityok.gov> Subject: [Oama] Fwd: Seeking your response to the lawsuit against Ponca City To: "oama@lists.imla.org" <oama@lists.imla.org> All, Just got this petition from the friendliest reporter I’ve ever dealt with (sarcasm intended). They claim that our narratives are public records even though I’ve found no less then three cases that say that they’re work product. They’re trying to claim that police narratives are brief statements. Even though the ORA says that brief statements, if kept, are releasable. I told her and Denver Nicks all if this but apparently they want to waste their money, unless I’m totally misunderstanding clear case law. Any tips? John Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "John R. Andrew" <andrejr@poncacityok.gov> Date: January 26, 2024 at 5:05:01 PM CST To: "Craig A. Stephenson" <stephca@poncacityok.gov>, "Don M. Bohon" <bohondm@poncacityok.gov> Subject: Fwd: Seeking your response to the lawsuit against Ponca City  I cannot believer they are suing over this. There is clear case law. I will handle this one in house. Thanks, John Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "Whitney Bryen: OKWatch" <wbryen@oklahomawatch.org> Date: January 26, 2024 at 5:00:22 PM CST To: "John R. Andrew" <andrejr@poncacityok.gov> Subject: Seeking your response to the lawsuit against Ponca City  WARNING: External email. Please verify sender before opening attachments or clicking links. Hi Mr. Andrew, As you likely know, Oklahoma Watch and myself through my capacity as a reporter, are suing Ponca City over the denial of the police summary in the incident report I requested last summer. We will be posting a story on our website and I wanted to extend an opportunity for you or the police department to respond to the lawsuit. I attached the filing. Thank you for your help. -- Whitney Bryen Multimedia journalist Oklahoma Watch Call or Text me: 405-201-6057 -------------- next part -------------- A message part incompatible with plain text digests has been removed ... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 5926 bytes Desc: not available -------------- next part -------------- A message part incompatible with plain text digests has been removed ... Name: Petition - Bryen v Oklahoma FINAL.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 6463408 bytes Desc: Petition - Bryen v Oklahoma FINAL.pdf ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer Oama mailing list -- oama@lists.imla.org To unsubscribe send an email to oama-leave@lists.imla.org ------------------------------ End of Oama Digest, Vol 50, Issue 9 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for the person to which it is addressed and may contain privileged and confidential information protected by law. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or e-mail, destroy this message and delete any copies held in your electronic files. Unauthorized use and/or re-disclosure may subject you to penalties under applicable state and federal laws.