Records Requests

OCPD-10716-2026, the request built to defeat the "not kept that way" rationale by asking only for the Flock platform's own native export, came back denied through the Municipal Counselor's office under 51 O.S. § 24A.8(A), (B)(1), and (C). Three things follow. First, the log exists. Subsection (B)(1) is a discretionary withholding of an existing law-enforcement record; you cannot "may deny" a record that is not there. The denial confirms what Flock's own July 8 press release said - every search generates a comprehensive audit record. Second, withholding it is a choice. Subsection (B) says an agency "may" deny, and that a court may order release where the public interest outweighs the reason for denial. The department is permitted to hand over the usage log of a mass-surveillance system the public paid for, and is choosing not to. Third, the classification is now incoherent by design. The same audit log has been called not-a-law-enforcement-record (to route it away on July 10), an-OCPD-system-the-City-cannot-access (the ORR-4292 bounce on July 22), and a-law-enforcement-record-the-department-may-withhold (here). Three labels, one file, each conveniently pointing away from disclosure. What no response has ever done is produce it - even though the department has, at least once, read this very system's records closely enough to sustain an internal misconduct finding against one of its own officers (see The Case, Section 05). The capability is real. It is used when a complaint forces it, and withheld from everyone else.

The written follow-up produced the first full accounting from the OKCPD Records Unit - and a confirmation, in writing, that the portal's public status is not what it appears to be: "OCPD records utilizes the 'completed' status in our records system to clarify internally that this request has been worked on. It does not always mean that the request is finished." For ten days, the public record showed five accountability requests as complete. By the department's own account, none of them was.

The accounting also revealed where the five requests actually are: forwarded to the Municipal Counselor's office, determined to be "not a law enforcement record," and routed to personnel review, where they remain pending. OKCPD says the requester will be contacted when that review concludes. Note the toggle. When the City denied the 5-118 paper trail, those records were law enforcement records, exempt from disclosure. The sharing agreements, federal-access, System Administrator, training, and effectiveness requests are "not a law enforcement record" - and still nothing has been produced. Either classification, same result. The July 13 correspondence turned out to be one-line notices that each request had been "forwarded for Personnel Review" - notices that did arrive, contrary to an earlier version of this update (see the corrections log). What they are not is a response: no records, no findings, no denial, no statutory citation. And the review they describe now has a shape: it is conducted by a single attorney in the Municipal Counselor's office - the same office that authored every denial in this tracker and made the classification determinations - with no reference number and no timeline, and the requests "still being worked as an open record" until that attorney "will advise what is releasable." Separately, the City records office declined ORR-4292-2026 as "an OCPD system" matter it cannot access - the same records the City's July 10 response called "not law enforcement records." Requested from the police: not police records. Requested from the City: a police system. OCPD-10716-2026 remains live and will have to resolve that contradiction one way or the other.

One day after the written challenges went in, the Municipal Counselor's office answered - on procedure, not on the merits. The office will not process supplements to existing or prior requests: "the better course of action is that you file a second request for the documents you are seeking." Neither substantive point - the citation to a statute section that does not exist, or the governance-versus-law-enforcement mismatch - was addressed. The response did put two useful things in writing. First, a requester may list documents already produced so staff do not re-review them; the new requests are scoped exactly that way. Second, the City routes law-enforcement records through the OCPD portal and everything else through the ORR portal. That routing rule matters more than it looks: the City's July 10 denial of OCPD-10080-2026 called the requested audit records "not law enforcement records." Under the rule the City just confirmed, records that are not law-enforcement records belong in the ORR channel, so the audit-log request is being re-filed there, resting on the City's own classification. The office also identified the City Clerk as the authority on which requests remain open, so a written status inventory of every Round 2 ticket is going to the Clerk. The clock restarts; the questions do not change.

Filed the same day: OCPD-10715-2026 (successor to OCPD-9710, the five unproduced 5-118 paper-trail categories), OCPD-10716-2026 (successor to OCPD-10080, the platform's native audit-log export), and ORR-4292-2026 (the same audit records through the City channel, on the routing described above). The third supplement, on OCPD-10088, drew the same answer as the first two. A same-day portal review shows the full board: every OKCPD ticket is now marked Completed. Of the eight, three came back as denials or partial denials, and five - Requests #2, #4, #5, #7, and #9 - were marked Completed on July 13, four days after filing, with no records produced - only one-line notices that each had been forwarded for personnel review. All four City ORR requests remain In Progress. The OCPD-9710 pattern - a portal status that says finished while nothing is produced - now covers the majority of what the department was asked. What remains open is the City channel.

Later the same day, the status inventory came back from the City Clerk's office and completed the circle. The Municipal Counselor's office had directed status questions to the City Clerk. The Clerk's office directed the OCPD questions back to OCPD - the department that closed every one of its tickets, through a portal that does not accept replies from requesters. The four City ORR requests were confirmed "still in process" with no ETA available. The direct question - what response was transmitted on the five Completed-but-pending tickets, on what date, and to what address - was not answered. A written follow-up now goes to OKCPD Records directly: the same channel that previously produced the OCPD-9710 findings after that ticket was likewise marked Completed with nothing delivered.

OCPD-9710-2026, the request for the paper trail behind the June 15 rewrite of Section 5-118, finally produced written findings after being marked "Completed" on July 7 with nothing attached. The Municipal Counselor's office now says it will "refer the requestor to the electronic published Operations Manual and provide a copy of the revised Procedure 5-118," and denies the rest as "law enforcement records not required to be disclosed." Both documents produced are already public, and the revised 5-118 text has been on this site since July 9. The five things actually requested - drafts and redlines, internal emails about the revision, communications with Flock Safety, communications with the Mayor, City Manager, Municipal Counselor and Council, and the written approval that authorized the change - were not produced and were not addressed. The denial describes them as records "regarding the placement of cameras and use of technology." None of the five is about camera placement or technology use. Every one is about who wrote, discussed, and signed off on a policy edit. That is a governance question, and the exemption cited is a law enforcement one. Three for three: every substantive Round 2 request routed through the Municipal Counselor's office has now come back withheld. The same request remains open with the City as ORR-4000-2026. All three outstanding challenges - OCPD-9710, OCPD-10080, and OCPD-10088 - were sent to the Municipal Counselor's office on July 21, 2026, each asking the City to either produce the records or state plainly, in writing, that they do not exist.

Two Round 2 responses arrived this morning, both routed through the Municipal Counselor's office. OCPD-10088-2026 (stolen vehicle case linkage) received a partial response - pointers to the June 15 Operations Manual and the public "Crime Prevention & Data" page - with the remainder denied pursuant to 51 O.S. § 24A.8(C) on the ground that "records are not kept in the way requested nor does the open records act impose any new recordkeeping requirements." The "we do not track this" confirmation is itself the finding this request was designed to surface. OCPD-10080-2026 (audit / search logs) was fully denied under 51 O.S. §§ 24A.8(A), (B)(1), and (C) - a stack of citations that treats platform-native records as if OKCPD would have to create them. Written follow-ups going out on both. Same Municipal Counselor boilerplate on both denials is a pattern worth watching as the other nine responses arrive.

OCPD-9710-2026 (Request #3, Section 5-118 revision paper trail) was marked "Completed" in the JustFOIA portal on July 7, five days after filing, with no response documents produced and no written explanation delivered. The portal is read-only for requesters, so a written follow-up to the OKC records officer is going out separately to compel a response on the record. On July 9, eleven additional Round 2 filings went in: new tickets for Requests #1, #2, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, and #11, plus a re-file of Request #3 with the City records office as ORR-4000-2026. Every Round 2 request is now in the system. Tracker below reflects current status of each ticket.