Via email
City of Tulsa
c/o Kristina Gray
(kgray@cityoftulsa.org)
Re: Public Access Counselor Advisement – Complaint No. 2026-019
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 received the Complaint on February 6, 2026 from Paul Tyrrell, a journalist with the Tulsa World. The Complaint alleges that the City of Tulsa (“City”) improperly denied a request under the Oklahoma Open Records Act (“ORA”) for emails and attachments sent or received by two Tulsa Fire Department (“TFD”) employees on March 1, 2025. According to the Complaint, the City advised Mr. Tyrrell that “there are no records responsive to your request.”
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 claims that while its initial search did not locate responsive records, another search conducted after receiving the Complaint uncovered a responsive email between the two TFD employees, along with an attachment described as an Incident Detail Report (together, the “Records”).1 Nevertheless, the City argues that the Records are not subject to production under the ORA or contain information that should be redacted.
Upon review of the records provided by the City and consideration of the City’s response, I have determined the following:
- The email chain and attached Incident Detail Report are records as defined by the ORA. 51 O.S.Supp.2025, § 24A.3(1). As such, they must “be open to any person” unless otherwise exempt by virtue of another provision of the ORA or other law. Id. § 24A.5.
- The City claims the Records are law enforcement records owned, managed, and maintained by the Tulsa Police Department (“TPD”) and the City therefore may, in its discretion, withhold them from public view under 51 O.S.Supp.2022, § 24A.8. To be clear, the Records were in possession of TFD, which is plainly not a law enforcement agency as defined by the ORA. See 51 O.S.Supp.2025, § 24A.3(5).2 Nevertheless, the City argues that the majority of the TFD email is “information that has been copied and pasted from [TPD’s] CADS system which relates to 911 calls.” The City also claims that the attached Incident Email Report is generated directly from the CADS system.
- From my review, the City’s claim that information in the email is “copied and pasted” from the CADS system appears inaccurate. Rather, the email looks to be the TFD Captain’s own characterizations of CADS information and his reflections on the perceived shortcomings of a particular 911 dispatch response.
- With that said, even if some or all of the information contained in the Records was drawn from the CADS system maintained by TPD, the records sought by Mr. Tyrrell were TFD records: an email and attachment sent between TFD employees. The source of the information described in the Records is irrelevant. As stated above, the law enforcement provisions of 51 O.S.Supp.2022, § 24A.8 do not apply to TFD records.
Based on the information available to me at this time, I conclude that the email chain and attached Incident Detail Report are open records under 51 O.S.Supp.2025, § 24A.3 and that the City has not provided any legal basis to deny public access. To the extent the Records include protected health or juvenile information that the City is prohibited from disclosing, the City should redact that information only as allowed or required by law. The City’s options upon receiving this advisement are set forth in 51 O.S.Supp.2025, § 24A.40(G). If you have any 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: Paul Tyrrell (via email)
[1]It is troubling that Mr. Tyrrell’s narrow, straightforward request—which also included proposed search terms that show up in the Records—was met with a plainly erroneous response that no such records existed. It was not until the Complaint was filed that the City realized and corrected its error. While no system for locating public records is perfect, I would recommend the City take steps to ensure it has robust ORA systems and processes in place to avoid similar situations in the future.
[2]The Oklahoma Supreme Court recently emphasized that only public bodies that enforce state or local criminal laws and initiate criminal prosecutions are “law enforcement agencies for the purposes of the ORA.” Lawson v. LeFlore Co. Detention Center Public Trust Security Comm., 2025 OK 87, ¶ 12.
