Via email
The City of Oklahoma City
c/o Kelea Fisher, Assistant Municipal Counselor
Re: Public Access Counselor Advisement – Complaint No. 2025-70
Dear Counsel,
This is an official advisement regarding the above-referenced complaint (“Complaint”) submitted to this office pursuant to 51 O.S.Supp.2025, § 24A.40. The Public Access Counselor (“PAC”) received the Complaint on October 17, 2025 from Tommy Lee Carson III, a private citizen. The Complaint alleges that the City of Oklahoma City (“City”) improperly denied a request under the Oklahoma Open Records Act (“ORA”) for a 911 audio recording (“911 Audio”) from the Oklahoma City Police Department (“OCPD”) pertaining to Mr. Carson’s father.
Per the terms of 51 O.S.Supp.2025, § 24A.40(F), I conducted an initial review and determined the Complaint warranted a response from the City. In its response, the City argues it is not required to provide access because the 911 Audio is a record of a law enforcement agency and 911 audio recordings are not among the records required by 51 O.S.Supp.2022, § 24A.8 to be made accessible to the public.1
Upon review of the records provided by the City and consideration of the City’s response, I have determined the following:
- The ORA in 51 O.S.Supp.2022, § 24A.8 sets forth the parameters for access to law enforcement records. Records listed in subsection (A), if kept by a law enforcement agency, must be made available to the public. The agency may, in its discretion, deny access to all other records unless a court “finds that the public interest or the interest of an individual outweighs the reason for denial.” Id. § 24A.8(B).
- The City has shown that the 911 Audio is a record of OCPD, a law enforcement agency. Audio recordings of 911 calls are not among the records listed in 51 O.S.Supp.2022, § 24A.8(A). Accordingly, OCPD may, in its discretion, deny Mr. Carson’s request for access until a court “finds that the public interest or the interest of an individual outweighs the reason for denial.”
- The City’s discretion in this regard is not unfettered. It must balance its reasons for denying access to records against the interests of the requester and/or the public at large. Here the City has made a colorable case that, after balancing these interests, it need not release the 911 Audio to Mr. Carson. While I might have reached a different conclusion, the PAC does not serve as the check on the City’s balancing of interests. Instead, the ORA vests that authority solely in the judicial system. 51 O.S.Supp.2022, § 24A.8(B).
Based on the information available to me at this time, I conclude that the City has a good-faith legal basis to deny public access to the 911 Audio. Under 51 O.S.Supp.2025, § 24A.40(G), no further response is required. If you have any follow up questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (405) 522-2771 or by email at opengov@oag.ok.gov.
Sincerely,
Anthony Sykes
Assistant Attorney General
Public Access Counselor
cc: Tommy Lee Carson III (via email)
[1]While the City mentions additional arguments in support of its position, I did not consider them in reaching my conclusion. The language of 51 O.S.Supp.2022, § 24A.8 is sufficiently clear to resolve the Complaint.
