Table of Contents
A suspended attorney walked into the Leflore County courthouse with recording equipment Tuesday, exploiting a loophole that highlights the arbitrary nature of a controversial recording ban affecting ordinary citizens. While courthouse security threatens arrest for anyone bringing phones or cameras inside, attorneys with bar cards receive special exemptions.
The policy creates a two-tiered system where legal professionals enjoy constitutional protections denied to the general public, even in the same government offices.
Constitutional Officers Reject the Ban
During recorded conversations, both the court clerk and county clerk stated they have no objections to citizens recording in their offices. The court clerk, whose office is created by the Oklahoma Constitution rather than administrative order, emphasized that she operates independently of court control for most functions.
The county clerk, an elected official, similarly expressed no concerns about recording during public records requests or routine business. Both constitutional officers appeared puzzled by restrictions they neither requested nor support.
Deputies Caught Between Law and Orders
Sheriff's deputies found themselves in an uncomfortable position when presented with federal case law establishing citizens' rights to record public officials. A 2022 Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals decision was shared with deputies, specifically noting that officers lose qualified immunity when they interfere with constitutionally protected recording.
Lieutenant Moss acknowledged the difficult position, stating his department didn't create the policy but must somehow enforce it. The case law presented makes clear that public officials cannot restrict recording in publicly accessible areas of government buildings.
The Bar Card Privilege Problem
The most glaring issue exposed during the courthouse visit was the special treatment afforded to attorneys. While citizens face arrest threats for bringing phones inside, anyone with a bar card walks freely through security with recording equipment.
This arbitrary distinction cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny. Equal protection principles forbid creating privileged classes for fundamental rights like documenting interactions with public officials.
What Happened Next Remains Unknown
As tensions mounted and officials consulted supervisors about enforcement, the situation reached a critical juncture. Multiple departments became involved, each pointing to different authorities for the controversial policy.
The lieutenant promised to consult with supervisors and potentially the district attorney's office about how to proceed. Whether Leflore County will continue enforcing its constitutionally questionable ban, or if officials will face the federal consequences outlined in that Tenth Circuit decision, remains unresolved.
Watch the full confrontation to see how courthouse officials responded when their recording ban met constitutional reality.
