Court Opinion

ID: 9631547
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:41:59.422531+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:56.570360
License: Public Domain

LANE, J.,
dissents.
¶ 1 I dissent for two reasons. First, I believe that the Oklahoma Open Records Act1 applies. Our statutes require that once a search warrant is executed the affidavit for search warrant and the transcript of oral testimony, if taken, must be filed with the court clerk.2 Section 24A.3 (2) includes courts in the definition of public bodies covered by the act. This makes the documents a part of the public record, and § 24A.5 makes them open to any person for inspection and copying, etc. According to the terms of the act, the only exceptions are records that are statutorily exempted. I find no statutory exemption for affidavits for search warrants. In my opinion, I think that it would take an act of the legislature to permit a court to seal such records.
¶ 2 The majority uses North Dakota law, the state after which we modeled our search warrant law, to show that they have provided a method whereby the issuing documents may be sealed. Rather than find this a possible precedent or model for our decision, I find it interesting to see that North Dakota found it necessary to authorize the sealing *1260through legislation instead of judicial decision. It should be further noted that the sealing shall apply only to the time between issuance of the warrant and the time the accused is arrested. Today, we are greatly exceeding this time limit.
¶ 3 The second reason I dissent is that I think the Petitioner is being denied due process. “Due process of law includes several procedural guarantees, among which is the opportunity to present evidence to the trial tribunal.”3 Our search warrant statutes require that if the grounds for the issuance of the warrant are controverted the magistrate must take testimony, and if it appears that there is no probable cause for believing the existence of the grounds on which the warrant was issued the magistrate must return the property.4 By denying the Petitioner the right to examine the sealed materials, we are denying him statutorily granted due process.
¶ 4 I would find that the Petitioner should be given access to the materials or have the seized property restored to him immediately.

. 51 O.S.Supp.1997, § 24A.1 etseq.

. 22 O.S.1991, § 1224.2

. Crussel v. Kirk, 1995 Old. 41 ¶ 16, 894 P.2d 1116, 1121.

. 22 O.S.1991, § 1235 and 22 O.S.1991 § 1237.