If municipality's ordinances are not supplemented/re-codified as per 11 O.S. § 14-109, do you take the position that the penal ordinances: 1. are not enforceable at all? or 1. are enforceable according to the last properly codified/supplemented version? or 1. are enforceable up to a $50.00 limit as per 11 O.S. § 111(E)? In his concurrence in Weis v. City of Oklahoma City, 1981 OK CR 133, ¶ 5, 636 P.2d 346, 348, where the question was whether a penal ordinance that hadn't been amended since the last codification was enforceable even though the city's biennial supplements were not filed, Judge Cornish said: In construing 11 O.S.Supp.1980, s 14-109, I find that the Legislature intended municipal penal ordinances to be enforceable if they are: (1) reflected in a permanent volume; or (2) published in a biennial supplement. The language in the statute requiring the publication of a biennial supplement merely addresses the enforceability of municipal penal ordinances, which are adopted subsequent to the permanent volume but adopted before the biennial supplement. Therefore, Oklahoma City's failure to timely file its biennial supplements is irrelevant in this case. (The fine in Weis wasn't over the limit established by 11 O.S. § 111(E)). A follow-up question: do you think it's the municipality's responsibility to raise this issue? Or is it up to the person who is accused of violating an ordinance to raise it when appearing before the municipal judge? Thanks for any input - Kim Spady