Judge Denies Request To Dismiss Charge Against Former Sheriff Glanz

Friday, March 11th 2016, 6:37 pm
By: News On 6

A judge denied a request to dismiss one of the criminal charges against former Tulsa County Sheriff Stanley Glanz.

The charge is refusal to perform official duty, by not releasing an internal investigative report to media. The judge ruled the report does not contain personal information, and, therefore, should have been released.

9/30/2015: Related Story: Tulsa County Sheriff Resigns After Indictments Handed Down

The sheriff's office denied that the 2009 investigative report existed. It found that former reserve deputy Bob Bates, who shot and killed suspect Eric Harris in April, was given special treatment, and did not have training to be a reserve deputy.

On Friday, the judge ruled that openness is essential to democracy and the report should have been released upon several open records requests. Instead, media outlets, including News On 6, received the report when it was leaked.

Special Coverage: Tulsa County Reserve Deputy Shooting Controversy

As he left the courtroom, Glanz's attorney told us he disagreed with the ruling.

"I am disappointed and a little bit surprised but, hey, you know that's what judges are for and it's an evolving area of the law," said Scott Wood.

We also learned on Friday this report was kept in the basement of the sheriff's office, under lock and key.

Glanz's attorney argued that's why it didn't need to be released, but prosecutors argued it should be released for that same reason, saying, "If any government agency doesn't want the public to know, let's put it in the dead file. Public officials shouldn't and can't be hiding their operations."

According to the documents read in open court, the Grand Jury indicted Glanz for willful violation of the law and violating the law for not releasing an internal report.

A grand jury indicted Glanz last September on two counts: one count for not releasing the report and another for willful violation of the law which involved taking a monthly stipend for travel within the county even though he used a county vehicle and used county-supplied fuel.