AND RECORDS. HOWEVER, 150.5 SPECIFICALLY MAKES CERTAIN OSBI RECORDS CONFIDENTIAL AND, IN FACT, EXACTS A PENALTY FOR DISCLOSURE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THAT SECTION. SECTION 150.5 WOULD CONTROL THE APPLICABILITY OF 74 O.S. 773 TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY TO HARMONIZE THE TWO PROVISIONS. THEREFORE, A LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE OR SUBCOMMITTEE WOULD NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO SUBPOENA OR OTHERWISE OBTAIN CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION OF THE OSBI.
THIS MAY NOT APPLY IN ALL SITUATIONS. WHILE RESEARCH HAS REVEALED NO SPECIFIC OKLAHOMA LAW ON THIS POINT, IT IS USEFUL TO NOTE THE GENERAL AUTHORITY OF THE LEGISLATURE TO SUBPOENA BOOKS AND RECORDS. IT HAS BEEN FOUND IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS THAT IT IS WITHIN THE POWER OF THE LEGISLATURE TO INVESTIGATE ANY SUBJECT RELATED TO ITS LEGISLATIVE POWER TO ENACT LAWS. GIBSON V. FLORIDA LEGISLATIVE INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE, 372 U.S. 539, 83 S.CT. 889, 9 L.ED.2D 929, CONFORMED TO 153 SO.2D 301 (1963). THIS POWER HAS BEEN SEEN TO BE PENETRATING AND FAR-REACHING. ID. AT 83 S.CT. 893. NONETHELESS, MATTERS INVESTIGATED ARE LIMITED TO THOSE WITHIN THE PROPER AUTHORITY FOR THE LEGISLATURE TO ENACT LAWS AND MUST BE LIMITED BY CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS OF PRIVACY. WALLACE V. BREWER, 315 F.SUPP. 431 (D.C.ALA.1970). IT EXCEEDS LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY TO INVESTIGATE A PERSON OR MATTER ON THE PRETENSE OF LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT IN ORDER TO INVESTIGATE SUCH A PERSON OR MATTER FOR PROSECUTION. GREENFIELD V. RUSSEL, 127 N.E. 102, 292 (ILL.1920). WHEN IN CONFLICT WITH PRIVACY ISSUE OR A MANDATE OF CONFIDENTIALITY, THE PROPRIETY OF SUCH LEGISLATIVE INQUIRY DEPENDS ON WHETHER IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE COMPLETION OR FURTHERANCE OF THE LEGISLATIVE INVESTIGATION UNDER WAY. HAUS V. WYMAN,360 U.S. 72, 79 S.CT. 1040, 3 L.ED.2D 1090 (1959).
THIS WOULD INDICATE THAT IN THE COURSE OF EXAMINING MATTERS RELATED TO CERTAIN LEGISLATIVE FUNCTIONS TO BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE LEGISLATURE, IT MAY BE PROPER FOR A COMMITTEE, OR THE WHOLE LEGISLATURE, TO REQUIRE THE PRODUCTION OF OTHERWISE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION OR RECORDS. THIS APPEARS TO BE LIMITED TO LEGISLATIVE PURPOSES BY THE OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION. ARTICLE IV, SECTION 1 OF THE OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION PROVIDES:
(TEXT OF ARTICLE/SEPARATION OF POWERS)
WHILE MOST COURTS WOULD AFFIRM THE BROAD POWER WHICH EXISTS, IT IS NOT ALL-ENCOMPASSING AND MUST RELATE TO THE LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION TO ENACT LAWS OR SOME OTHER LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION. TWEEDY V. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION, 624 P.2D 1049 (OKLA.1981). HOWEVER, THE SCOPE OF AUTHORITY OF A PARTICULAR COMMITTEE WOULD ENTAIL A QUESTION OF FACT, WHICH THIS OFFICE CANNOT ANSWER.
THIS INTERPRETATION DOES AVOID AN ABSURD RESULT OTHERWISE POSSIBLE. CRIMINAL PENALTIES APPLY FOR THE "UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE" OF OSBI RECORDS. 74 O.S. 150.5. THE RESPONSE TO A SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM, WHERE SUCH A SUBPOENA IS ISSUED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE LEGISLATURE OR A COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE IN FURTHERANCE OF ITS LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION, WOULD AUTHORIZE DISCLOSURE BASED UPON IMPLIED LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY. SO LONG AS THE INVESTIGATION IS NOT OF A JUDICIAL NATURE OR OTHERWISE IN CONFLICT WITH CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS ON SEPARATION OF POWERS, THERE WOULD LIKELY BE NO VIOLATION OF 150.5 BY A STATE EMPLOYEE WHO COMPLIED WITH SUCH A