Oklahoma AG Opinions, 2024

Attorney General Opinion concerning the authority and powers of individual commissioners of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission.

Attorney General Opinion concerning the prosecution of peace officers who use excessive force in light of House Bill 2537 (2023).

Attorney General opinion concerning the physician supervision requirement of certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs).

Attorney General opinion concerning whether a state-chartered credit union may qualify for a low-income designation if it meets the criteria required by the National Credit Union Administration.

Attorney General opinion concerning whether a member of the Legislature has a right to attend an executive session of a state agency, board or commission.

Attorney General opinion concerning whether unused funds from the School Security Revolving Fund established by House Bill 2903, 2023 Okla. Sess. Laws ch. 281, § 2, 70 O.S.Supp.2023, § 5-148.2(A), may be transitioned, or rolled over, and utilized in the following, or subsequent, fiscal year.

Attorney General opinion concerning whether a municipality may constitutionally allocate funds to a non-profit to provide eviction prevention services for the municipality. Okla. Const. art. X, §§ 14, 17.

Attorney General opinion concerning the applicability of Okla. Const. art. X, § 23 to the Grand River Dam Authority.

Receipt of interest, profit, or perquisite by a municipal officer of a municipality contracting with another public body or political subdivision.

An opinion determining that a qualified organization may use a third-party electronic raffle platform or software to host a raffle online, including fulfilling ticket orders, processing payments, and providing a random number generator for raffle entries, without violating 21 O.S.2021, § 1051. Further, a qualified organization may compensate a salaried employee if the member’s participation is voluntary and the compensation is not directly tied to conducting the raffle, such as through an incentive.

An opinion determining that in counties operating a county jail, multiple county officers and offices have both statutory and constitutional obligations to operate and maintain the jail. First, the county sheriff is responsible for the daily operation and maintenance of the jail for a county that has established and operates a jail. Second, the county commissioners have duties relating to establishing a county jail, annually inspecting the jail, and funding the jail. Third, the county excise board possesses a duty to ensure the county jail is adequately funded and has final approval authority for appropriation of county funds. 19 O.S.2021, § 180.65; 68 O.S.Supp.2023, § 3006–07. Because these duties are constitutional, a county must prioritize funding the operations and maintenance of the county jail before appropriating funds for statutory and other non-constitutional purposes.

An opinion concluding that the positions of the Secretary of Transportation, the Executive Director of the Oklahoma Department of Transportation, and the Executive Director of the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority each constitute an “office” for purposes of Oklahoma’s law prohibiting an individual from simultaneously holding two or more offices. 51 O.S.2021, § 6. When an office holder accepts and enters upon the duties of a second office without a statutory exemption from the dual office holding prohibition, acceptance of the second office operates to ipso facto vacate the first office.

Under the Oklahoma Supreme Court's four-pronged balancing factor test used to determine the constitutionality of legislative appointments to boards and commissions, this opinion concludes that the provisions of title 69 section 1703 (Supp.2023), as amended by House Bill 2263, are constitutional and do not violate the separation of powers provision in the Oklahoma Constitution. Okla. Const. art. IV, section 1; In re Okla. Dept. of Transp., 2002 OK 74, 64 P.3d 546; In re Okla. Dept. of Transp., 2003 OK 105, 82 P.3d 1000.

An opinion concluding that physician assistants are authorized to prescribe Schedule II drugs, but this authority is limited to on-site administration. Title 63, section 2-312(E) (Supp.2022) confirms that physician assistants prescribing controlled substances must otherwise comply with the 519.6 of title 59. Section 519.6 grants physician assistants a general authority to “prescribe drugs, including controlled medications in Schedules II through V,” but expressly qualifies in the next subsection that “[a] physician assistant may write an order for a Schedule II drug for immediate or ongoing administration on site.” 63 O.S.Supp.2022, 519.6(E)(1–2).

Attorney General opinion analyzing Oklahoma laws restricting ownership of land, including recent legislative amendments to title 60, section 121 (Supp.2023) requiring an affidavit when recording a deed with an Oklahoma county clerk. This opinion also declares certain deeds exempt from the affidavit requirement.

Attorney General opinion examining the statutory duties of Service Oklahoma, an agency tasked in 2022 with all powers, duties, and responsibilities previously exercised by the Driver License Services Division of the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety, including, upon request from an authorized person, preparing and maintaining a person's motor vehicle report. The opinion concludes that unless removed from a person's driving record in a manner authorized by law, title 47, section 6-117(D) requires a suspension of a driver's license to remain in the motor vehicle report for three years, even if Service Oklahoma lifts the suspension during the three years.