Tulsa, Oklahoma and the Right to Know Law

What happened this week in Tulsa, Oklahoma, is shocking. An unarmed, lone African-American man, walking slowly with his hands in the air, was shot and killed by one of several police officers who were following him. What is unusual about this incident is that two police videos showed the incident. One video was taken either from a police car or a body camera, and the other was taken from a helicopter circling overhead. Without the videos, the country would not have seen this incident and would not be shocked.

The prompt police release of these videos is praiseworthy. Not all police forces or prosecutors’ offices are willing to release videos of police interactions with civilians. This is where Right to Know laws come in. Both Pennsylvania and New Jersey have laws allowing the public to obtain certain public records. Both laws have sparked litigation. Right now the question of whether police videos must be disclosed in response to requests is pending in cases before the top courts of both Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We previously reported on a recent decision of the intermediate appellate court in New Jersey, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court, requiring production of dash cam videos. Paff v. Ocean County Prosecutor’s Office, 446 N.J. Super. 163, 141 A.3d 300 (App. Div., June 30, 2016).

An even more recent decision of that same court addresses another aspect of the New Jersey Open Public Records Act (OPRA). A news organization requested records from a prosecutor’s office about a person who was not charged with any crime. Apparently complaints had been made concerning the person’s work, 911 calls may have been made, and law enforcement reports may have been filed. The opinion did not identify the person in question, nor give additional information. The Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court held on August 31, 2016, that neither OPRA nor the common law right of access required the prosecutor’s office to confirm or deny the existence of any of the requested records: “we conclude that records relating to a person who has not been arrested or charged with an offense are entitled to confidentiality based on long-established judicial precedent.” North Jersey Media Group, Inc. v. Bergen Cnty. Prosecutor’s Office, 2016 N.J. Super. LEXIS 119, *2 (App. Div., Aug. 31, 2016) (“NJMG”).

NJMG shows that Right to Know laws are limited. Tulsa, Oklahoma shows that release of information, either voluntarily or under Right to Know laws, can be powerful evidence of what happened. In our era of surveillance video cameras everywhere, use of Right to Know laws can result in production of key evidence in both civil and criminal litigants’ cases. Locks Law Firm has experience pursuing relief under the Right to Know, and we stand ready to help you.

Tell Us About Your Case

If you can read this, please avoid filling the following input field or your submission may be marked as spam.
Thank you for contacting us! We will be in touch with you shortly.

Recent Entries


Locks Law Firm only provides legal advice after having entered into an attorney client relationship, which our website specifically does not create. Conversations that originate from website messaging, chat or other two way web based engagement  do not create an attorney client relationship. It is imperative that any action taken be done on the advice of counsel. Because every case is different, the description of awards and cases previously handled do not guarantee a similar outcome in current or future cases. The firm practices law in Pennsylvania, New Jersey & New York as Locks Law Firm. Super Lawyers, Best Lawyers in America and other organizations that rate attorneys are not designations that have been approved by the State Supreme Courts or the American Bar Association.