Table of Contents
When attorney Ron walked into the Okmulgee County Courthouse to examine public records from a high-profile murder case, he had no idea deputies would threaten him with arrest for simply holding a camera. What started as a routine public records request quickly escalated into a constitutional standoff that exposed serious gaps in how Oklahoma law enforcement understands basic civil rights.
The encounter began at the security checkpoint, where deputies demanded Ron's ID to enter the building. When he questioned the legal basis for this requirement, citing Fourth Amendment protections, one deputy pointed to a posted sign claiming state statute authorized the ID check.
The Recording Rights Confrontation
Things took a dramatic turn when Deputy Chris spotted Ron's camera and immediately declared that recording was illegal without permission. Despite Ron's attempts to educate the officer about established case law, including a 2022 Tenth Circuit Court decision specifically protecting the right to film police in the course of their duties, the deputy remained defiant.
"State of Oklahoma, you can't record me unless I give you permission," the deputy insisted, even as Ron explained the legal precedent that clearly contradicted this claim. The deputy's response was to double down, creating an immediate constitutional crisis over one of the most well-established First Amendment rights.
Under Sheriff Escalates the Threat
When Under Sheriff arrived to defuse the situation, he initially seemed more reasonable, acknowledging that officers could indeed be filmed. However, when Ron explained his intention to photograph public records in the court clerk's office, the under sheriff's tone shifted dramatically.
"You're going to tell me under threat of arrest I can't film in the court clerk's office?" Ron asked directly. "Yes, I am," came the stunning reply. The under sheriff was literally threatening to arrest an attorney for exercising his right to inspect and photograph public records in a constitutionally created public office.
Ron's response was immediate and pointed. "You understand I'm going to sue you, right?"
The Public Records Runaround
After clarifying that he only intended to visit the public counter area, not restricted spaces, Ron was finally allowed to proceed. But his attempts to obtain copies of the very policy being used to justify the ID requirements led to a bureaucratic shell game that would be comical if it weren't so concerning.
The county clerk's office sent him to the DA's office. The DA's office rudely dismissed him, with one employee walking away mid-conversation. When he returned to the county clerk, he was told no such policy existed in their records, despite the posted signage downstairs referencing county commissioner authorization.
The Mystery Policy Finally Surfaces
County Clerk Tanya admitted she had no knowledge of any such policy being adopted during her two-year tenure. She agreed to research the matter, suggesting Ron check the date on the posted sign downstairs. The interaction revealed a troubling pattern: policies being enforced by law enforcement that the very officials responsible for maintaining public records knew nothing about.
The video's final moments show Ron discovering a date on the courthouse posting: April 17th, 2023. But what that date represents, whether the policy is actually legally valid, and how this constitutional crisis ultimately resolves remains unclear.
This footage exposes the dangerous gap between what law enforcement thinks they can do and what the Constitution actually allows. Watch the full investigation to see how far officials will go to avoid accountability.
