Can the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety pull the Highway Patrol off the interstates that run through Oklahoma City and Tulsa?

Plain-English summary

On July 3, 2025, the Department of Public Safety announced it would shift Oklahoma Highway Patrol resources out of seven metropolitan-area cities (Oklahoma City, Edmond, Moore, Norman, Midwest City, Del City, and Tulsa) effective November 1, 2025. OHP would entrust interstate traffic enforcement within those city limits to municipal police departments, freeing OHP for rural areas where call volume was rising.

Senator Mark Mann asked the AG whether DPS had the legal authority to do that. AG Drummond answered: not all of it.

The decisive statute is 47 O.S. § 2-117(D)(2): "The Oklahoma Highway Patrol Division shall have primary law enforcement authority respecting traffic-related offenses upon the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways."

The AG's analysis:

1. "Primary" means principal. The plain meaning is "of first rank, importance, or value." OHP's authority on interstates ranks above all others: sheriffs, municipal police, and other peace officers. The same word ("primary law enforcement authority") in 74 O.S. § 1811.4C(A) describes DPS at the State Capitol Park, where everyone agrees DPS keeps that role.
2. "Shall" makes it mandatory. Under Oklahoma cases (Thurston, Hofmeister), "shall" is a command, not a discretion. Section 2-117(B)(10) reinforces this by giving OHP non-discretionary authority over interstate traffic-collision investigation throughout the state.
3. Reallocation is allowed; abandonment is not. OHP and the Commissioner have discretion to implement primary authority, they can move resources around. But a plan that "results in an abdication or abandonment of OHP's statutory responsibility" is not allowed.
4. The Governor's duty is statutory, not constitutional (here). Under 47 O.S. § 2-101(b), the Governor is DPS's chief officer and oversees the Commissioner's administration. That statutory duty answers the third question without reaching the constitutional duty under Article VI, § 8.

The AG's opinion is binding on state officials. The Commissioner can refine the November 2025 reallocation plan, but cannot pull OHP off the metropolitan interstates entirely.

What this means for you

If you are a DPS Commissioner or OHP planner

You have substantial discretion to reallocate troops to balance service across Oklahoma. You don't have discretion to leave a metro interstate stretch with no OHP presence at all. The plan needs to retain OHP as the primary authority across all interstates, which means continued presence in metro corridors, even if at reduced staffing relative to historical levels.

Practical guidance: ensure each metro interstate stretch has OHP coverage capacity sufficient to maintain the primary-authority role. Coordinate with municipal police on supplemental enforcement, but the lead role remains OHP's.

If you are the Governor

This opinion makes you statutorily responsible for ensuring OHP fulfills its duty under § 2-117(D)(2). If the Commissioner's plan effectively abandons metro interstate coverage, you must direct corrective action.

If you are a municipal police chief in OKC, Tulsa, or one of the other listed cities

Plan for continued shared interstate enforcement with OHP, not full takeover. Your authority is "supplemental" to OHP's primary role under § 2-117(D)(1). Coordinate dispatch, mutual aid, and major-collision protocols with OHP, but do not assume you will be carrying the whole interstate enforcement load.

If you are a county sheriff

Same principle, your interstate authority is supplemental, not primary. OHP retains lead authority. Coordinate but do not plan to absorb interstate primary patrol.

If you are an Oklahoma driver

You will continue to see OHP troopers on metropolitan interstates. The reallocation announced in July 2025 was bounded by this opinion. If you witness an interstate accident in Oklahoma City or Tulsa, OHP remains the primary investigating agency.

If you are a state legislator

The statute as written gives OHP a non-discretionary lead role. If you want to give DPS more flexibility (e.g., to permit metro municipalities to take over metro interstate enforcement), the legislature would need to amend § 2-117(D)(2) to remove or condition the "primary" language.

If you are a transportation safety advocate

The opinion preserves OHP coverage on metro interstates, which is significant because OHP enforcement levels affect crash rates and DUI arrests on those corridors.

Common questions

Q: Can DPS still move some troopers from metros to rural areas?
A: Yes. The opinion explicitly preserves DPS discretion over implementation. The constraint is that OHP must remain the primary authority across all interstates, which means continued metro presence, not necessarily at historical staffing.

Q: What does "primary law enforcement authority" mean in practice?
A: OHP leads the response to traffic offenses on the interstates. Other agencies have supplemental authority (they can also enforce). When the OHP shows up, OHP is the primary responder; other agencies coordinate with OHP, not the reverse.

Q: Can OHP completely stop responding to interstate calls in OKC and Tulsa?
A: No. That would be abdication or abandonment of the primary role. The opinion is explicit: "any reallocation resulting in an abdication or abandonment of OHP's statutory responsibility is impermissible under Oklahoma law."

Q: What if a municipal police department doesn't want the supplemental responsibility?
A: They aren't required to take a primary role. The interstate is OHP's primary jurisdiction. Municipal departments retain the authority to enforce but do not have the obligation to be the primary responder.

Q: Does this affect interstate toll plazas (turnpikes)?
A: The opinion is about the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. Oklahoma turnpikes (operated by OTA) are governed by separate provisions. Some turnpike sections are part of the Interstate System (e.g., I-44 through Tulsa) and would be covered by this opinion.

Q: Does this opinion apply to state highways (US highways, Oklahoma highways)?
A: No. This opinion is specifically limited to interstates. For state highway questions, see 2006 OK AG 14.

Q: What happens if DPS ignores the opinion?
A: AG opinions are binding on state officials under 74 O.S. § 18b. A public officer who acts in conformity with an AG opinion is protected from civil liability. Officials who ignore the opinion can be sued (typically through a writ of mandamus) to compel compliance.

Background and statutory framework

OHP was created in 1937 as a division of DPS. Initially, OHP's authority was "subordinate to" sheriffs and other peace officers (1937 Sess. Laws ch. 50, art. 4, § 16(2)). Over the decades, OHP's role grew:

• 1961: Legislature removed the "subordinate" language. OHP was directed to "cooperate with sheriffs and police officers."
• 1982: Legislature gave OHP "primary law enforcement authority respecting traffic-related offenses upon the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways" (HB 1617).
• 2004: Legislature gave OHP authority to investigate traffic collisions on all interstates and on highways outside incorporated municipalities, with discretion ("may") to investigate within incorporated municipalities only on local request.
• 2025: Legislature amended § 2-117 again (SB 375), but did not change the relevant primary-authority provisions.

The opinion uses standard Oklahoma statutory construction:

• Plain meaning of "primary" (Merriam-Webster: "of first rank, importance, or value: principal").
• Mandatory shall, Oklahoma cases consistently treat "shall" as a command.
• Render every word operative, Brown v. Claims Mgmt. requires interpretations that don't render statutory words "nugatory."
• Nearest-reasonable-referent canon, for the second clause of § 2-117(B)(10), "outside of incorporated municipalities" modifies only the second mention of "highways," not interstates.

The Governor's chief-officer role under § 2-101(b) and the Commissioner's role under § 2-108 cover the executive-supervision question without needing to reach the constitutional faithful-execution duty under Art. VI, § 8.

Citations and references

Statutes:
- 47 O.S. § 2-117(B)(10), (D)(2), OHP primary authority on interstates
- 47 O.S. § 2-101(b), Governor as DPS chief officer
- 47 O.S. § 2-108, DPS Commissioner duties
- 74 O.S. § 1811.4C(A): DPS primary authority at Capitol (parallel use of "primary law enforcement authority")

Cases:
- BS&B Safety Sys., L.L.C. v. Edgerton, 2023 OK 89, 535 P.3d 1283, statutory construction
- Thurston v. State Farm, 2020 OK 105, 478 P.3d 415, "shall" is mandatory
- Hofmeister, 2020 OK 56, 473 P.3d 475, "shall" vs. "may"
- Brown v. Claims Mgmt., 2017 OK 13, 391 P.3d 111, render every word operative

Source

• Landing page: https://oklahoma.gov/oag/opinions/ag-opinions/2025/ag-opinion-2025-11.html
• Original PDF: https://oklahoma.gov/content/dam/ok/en/oag/opinions/ag-opinions/2025/AG Opinion 2025-11 2025 OK AG 11.pdf

Original opinion text

GENTNER DRUMMOND
ATTORNEY GENERAL
ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION
2025-11
The Honorable Mark Mann
Oklahoma Senate, District 46
2300 N. Lincoln Blvd., Rm. 515.2
Oklahoma City, OK 73105

August 27, 2025

Dear Senator Mann:
This office has received your request for an Attorney General Opinion in which you ask, in effect,
the following questions:
1. Based on title 47, section 2-117 of the Oklahoma Statutes, which state agency is
responsible for patrolling and responding to incidents on Oklahoma’s National
System of Interstate and Defense Highways (“Interstates”)?
2. If the answer to question one is the Oklahoma Highway Patrol (“OHP”), does the
Department of Public Safety (“Department” or “DPS”) have authority to discontinue
OHP’s patrol and incident response on Interstates in certain areas of Oklahoma?
3. If the answer to question two is no, does article VI, section 8 of the Oklahoma
Constitution, which requires the Governor to “cause the laws of the State to be
faithfully executed,” compel the Governor to direct OHP to continue its enforcement
responsibilities referenced above?
I.
SUMMARY
This Opinion addresses only OHP’s duties and responsibilities with respect to Interstates in
Oklahoma. Nothing in this Opinion should be construed to apply to OHP’s duties and
responsibilities on state highways. 1

1

For analysis about OHP’s duties and responsibilities on state highways, see 2006 OK AG 14.

313 N.E. 21ST STREET • OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 • (405) 521-3921 • FAX: (405) 521-6246

The Honorable Mark Mann
Oklahoma Senate, District 46

A.G. Opinion
Page 2

Title 47, section 2-117(D)(2) provides that OHP “shall have primary law enforcement authority
respecting traffic-related offenses” on Oklahoma’s Interstates, 2 while county sheriffs, municipal
police departments, and other peace officers also have law enforcement authority on Interstates.
OHP’s “primary law enforcement authority” under section 2-117(D)(2) is a mandatory duty that
cannot be abdicated or abandoned in favor of other law enforcement agencies. As such, the
Governor, as DPS’s chief officer, must ensure that OHP fulfills its statutory duty as the “primary
law enforcement authority” by exercising its jurisdiction over all Interstates. For the reasons
explained below, this office need not reach the constitutional question regarding the Governor’s
duty under article VI, section 8 of the Oklahoma Constitution.
II.
BACKGROUND
A.

DPS Announcement

On July 3, 2025, DPS announced its intent to “shift its valuable resources out of” Oklahoma City,
Edmond, Moore, Norman, Midwest City, Del City, and Tulsa effective November 1, 2025. 3 As a
result, OHP “will entrust responsibility for all” Interstates within these city limits to the respective
municipal law enforcement agencies. 4 In a press conference two weeks after the announcement,
DPS Commissioner Tim Tipton reiterated the need to focus OHP’s patrol operations on rural
Oklahoma to meet the steady increase in calls for service in those areas. 5 In short, your questions
ask whether this reallocation of OHP resources from Oklahoma’s two major metropolitan areas to
rural Oklahoma is lawful.
B.

OHP’s Enabling Act

Created in 1937 as a division of DPS, OHP’s powers and duties were “subordinate to and no way
a limitation on the powers and duties of sheriffs or other peace officers of the State or any political
subdivision thereof.” House Bill 26, 1937 Okla. Sess. Laws ch. 50, art. 4, § 16(2). 6 This legislation
also required OHP to “cooperate with sheriffs and police officers in enforcing all laws of the State
of Oklahoma . . . .” Id. § 17. True enough, Oklahoma Interstates were not yet constructed in 1937,

2
Oklahoma’s Interstates are a part of the larger “Interstate System,” or the Dwight D. Eisenhower National
System of Interstate and Defense Highways, as set forth in 23 U.S.C. §§ 101(a)(12) & 103(c).

Press Release, Oklahoma Department of Public Safety, Oklahoma Highway Patrol Resource Allocation
(July 3, 2025) (on file with author).
3

4

See supra footnote 3.

5
Tim Tipton, Commissioner, Oklahoma Department of Public Safety, Press Conference about OHP Resource
Allocation (July 17, 2025), https://www.facebook.com/share/v/19RgMRVnrJ/.

See also History, Oklahoma Department of Public Safety (last modified Jan. 8, 2025),
https://oklahoma.gov/dps/programs-services/ohp/history.html.
6

The Honorable Mark Mann
Oklahoma Senate, District 46

A.G. Opinion
Page 3

and they all did not become fully operational until 1985 when I-44 through Oklahoma City
opened. 7
Then, in 1961, the Legislature adopted the Uniform Vehicle Code, which re-created DPS and OHP.
House Bill 556, 1961 Okla. Sess. Laws tit. 47, ch. 10b, pp. 315–423. Additionally, the 1961
enactment of title 47, section 2-117 of the Oklahoma Statutes removed language making OHP
“subordinate” to sheriffs and other peace officers. Compare 47 O.S.1961, § 2-117(2) with 1937
Okla. Sess. Laws ch. 50, art. 4, § 16(2). Instead, OHP was to simply “cooperate with sheriffs and
police officers in enforcing the laws regulating the operation of vehicles and the use of
highways[.]” See 1961 Okla. Sess. Laws tit. 47, ch. 10b, § 2-118(a). In 1982, the Legislature again
amended OHP’s jurisdiction, stating for the first time that the OHP “shall have primary law
enforcement authority respecting traffic related offenses upon the National System of Interstate
and Defense Highways.” House Bill 1617, 1982 Okla. Sess. Laws ch. 16, § 1. The same language
now appears in section 2-117(D)(2). 8 Furthermore, section 2-117(B)(10) also gives the DPS, or
OHP, the “authority, responsibilit[y], power[], and dut[y]” to “investigate and report traffic
collisions on all [Interstates] and on all highways outside of incorporated municipalities, and may
investigate traffic collisions within any incorporated municipality upon request of the local law
enforcement agency.” 9 And title 47, section 2-118 of the Oklahoma Statutes directs the
Commissioner to “require the [OHP to] properly patrol the highways of this state.” Together, these
statutory provisions form the basis of the DPS’s and OHP’s jurisdiction on the Interstates.
At bottom, this opinion turns on (1) the meaning of “primary” in the context of “primary law
enforcement authority,” and (2) whether section 2-117(D)(2) is merely a power or, rather, a
mandatory duty.
III.

DISCUSSION
To be sure, this office has no reason to doubt that there is an increased need for more resources in
rural Oklahoma to ensure the coverage and service Oklahomans expect from OHP. More to the
point, this office concludes that the OHP’s “primary law enforcement authority respecting trafficrelated offenses” on Oklahoma’s Interstates is a mandatory duty that cannot be abdicated to the
detriment of local law enforcement, either in urban or rural areas. First, the definition of “primary”
within the context of section 2-117 complements the longstanding construction of the word “shall”
in statute. Second, the Legislature demonstrated its intent by using the word “shall,” evidencing a
legislative directive.
Diana Everett, Highways, THE ENCYC. OF OKLA. HIST. AND CULTURE (Jan. 15, 2010),
https://www.okhistory.org/publications/enc/entry?entry=HI004.
7

Section 2-117 is essentially OHP’s jurisdictional statute. State v. Crowley, 2009 OK CR 22, ¶ 3, 215 P.3d
99, 100. During the 2025 Regular Session, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill 375, which amended section 2-117. See
2025 Okla. Sess. Laws ch. 197, § 2. Senate Bill 375 did not amend any provisions relevant in this Opinion.
8

Section 2-117(B)(10)’s current language originates from a 2004 amendment, which required OHP to
investigate and report traffic collisions on all Interstates and state highways outside of municipalities. 2004 Okla.
Sess. Laws ch. 418, § 6.
9

The Honorable Mark Mann
Oklahoma Senate, District 46
A.

A.G. Opinion
Page 4

Title 47, Section 2-117 of the Oklahoma Statutes requires OHP to be the lead law
enforcement authority for traffic offenses on Interstates.

In its first 45 years—from 1937 to 1982—OHP did not have any “primary” responsibility. As
detailed above, the 1982 amendment to section 2-117 fundamentally changed OHP’s enforcement
responsibilities. It no longer played second fiddle to sheriffs and other law enforcement officers
on Interstates. In 1982, section 1 of House Bill 1617 amended title 47, section 2-117 to read, “The
powers and duties conferred on the members of the Oklahoma Highway Patrol shall not limit the
powers and duties of sheriffs or other peace officers . . . provided however, . . . the Oklahoma
Highway Patrol Division shall have primary law enforcement authority respecting traffic-related
offenses upon the [Interstates].” 10 (Emphasis added).
Under Oklahoma law, the “cardinal rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to
the legislative intent and purpose as expressed by the statutory language.” BS&B Safety Sys., L.L.C.
v. Edgerton, 2023 OK 89, ¶ 4, 535 P.3d 1283, 1284. Additionally, this office “must interpret
statutes in a manner which renders every word and sentence operative, not in a manner which
renders a specific statutory provision nugatory.” Brown v. Claims Mgmt. Res. Inc., 2017 OK 13, ¶
22, 391 P.3d 111, 118. Here, the 1982 amendment gave OHP new authority—primary authority—
over traffic-related offenses on Interstates.
While the Legislature did not define the word “primary,” the plain meaning 11 of “primary” is “of
first rank, importance, or value: principal.” Primary, MERRIAM-WEBSTER.COM (last updated July
26, 2025), https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/primary. As a result, OHP’s law
enforcement authority under section 2-117(D)(2) relating to traffic offenses on Interstates is
principal to and ranks above all others, including sheriffs, municipal police departments, and other
peace officers in the State. Put another way, such officers must give way to OHP’s “primary law
enforcement authority” regarding traffic offenses on Interstates.
The Legislature has used the phrase “primary law enforcement authority” in one other statute. Title
74, section 1811.4C(A) of the Oklahoma Statutes provides, “[DPS] shall be the primary law
enforcement authority within the State Capitol Park and within the State Capitol Complex.” As is
the case in title 47, section 2-117, “primary law enforcement authority” is undefined in section
1811.4C. Even though both provisions share the same language, DPS has not indicated its intent
to reallocate resources away from the Park and Complex and allow other law enforcement agencies
to assume responsibility for law enforcement over the Park and Complex. And it should not. Just
like DPS (OHP) has primary authority within the Park and Complex, OHP has the same primary
authority on Interstates. The bottom line is that the same phrase cannot have two different
meanings.

Today, section 2-117(D)’s substantive language remains the same, but the lead-in slightly differs: “Except
as provided in this subsection . . . .” Nonetheless, this office would reach the same answer regardless of whether it
construed the 1982 version or the current version of section 2-117.
10

“Words used in any statute are to be understood in their ordinary sense, except when a contrary intention
plainly appears, and except also that the words hereinafter explained are to be understood as thus explained.” 25
O.S.2021, § 1.
11

The Honorable Mark Mann
Oklahoma Senate, District 46
B.

A.G. Opinion
Page 5

The Commissioner and OHP must serve as the primary law enforcement authority
regarding traffic offenses on Interstates and possess reasonable discretion while
implementing such duty.

Cases before the Oklahoma Supreme Court about state agency authority often rest on whether an
agency or agency head has a mandatory duty or if it possesses a power with which it may exercise
some degree of discretion. Here, OHP “shall have primary law enforcement authority respecting
traffic-related offenses” on Interstates. 47 O.S.2021, § 2-117(D)(2). The Oklahoma Supreme Court
treats the word “shall” as one “signif[ying] a mandatory directive or command, rather than a
permissive one.” Thurston v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2020 OK 105, ¶ 18, 478 P.3d 415,
420. Additionally, “[a] long-standing rule of statutory construction is that ‘may’ generally denotes
permissive or discretional, while ‘shall’ is ordinarily interpreted as a command or mandate;
however directory construction rather than mandatory for the word ‘shall’ may be made upon a
finding of legislative intent for such construction. Indep. Sch. Dist. # 52 of Oklahoma Cnty. v.
Hofmeister, 2020 OK 56, ¶ 35, 473 P.3d 475, 491. Here, the word “shall” in section 2-117(D)(2)
is a mandatory directive or command.
Nothing in section 2-117 indicates that OHP has discretion to choose whether it will patrol
Interstates. Indeed, it has “primary law enforcement authority” for traffic offenses on all of the
Interstate system in Oklahoma. Consequently, section 2-117(D)(2)’s legislative mandate prevents
DPS from ceasing OHP’s primary enforcement authority on Interstates as described in the
Department’s July 2025 press release and subsequent press conference.
Furthermore, section 2-117(B)(10)’s language also supports this conclusion for two reasons. First,
the relevant language in section 2-117(B)(10) comprises two clauses in the following order: (1)
“To investigate and report traffic collisions on all [Interstates] and on all highways outside of
incorporated municipalities,” and (2) “may investigate traffic collisions within any incorporated
municipality upon request of the local law enforcement agency.” (Emphasis added). As noted
previously, “may” notes permission or discretion. Hofmeister, ¶ 35, 473 P.3d at 491. The preceding
clause setting forth OHP’s “authority, responsibilities, powers, and duties” on Interstates leaves
no room for permission or discretion. 47 O.S.2021, § 2-117(B)(10). Therefore, section 2117(B)(10) reinforces OHP’s principal duty to investigate and report traffic collisions on
Interstates.
Second, the prepositional phrase “outside of incorporated municipalities” only modifies the second
instance of the word “highways.” “Outside incorporated municipalities” only applies to the
“second” highways because it appears at the tail end of the initial clause in section 2-117(B)(10),
which makes that second instance of highways the nearest-reasonable referent. 12 Thus, OHP’s duty
to be the primary law enforcement authority on Interstates extends to all parts of Interstates—
inside and outside of incorporated municipalities.

See Nearest-Reasonable-Referent Canon (“When the syntax involves something other than a paralleled
series of nouns or verbs, a prepositive or postpositive modifier normally applies only to the nearest reasonable
referent.”). ANTONIN SCALIA & BRYAN A. GARNER, READING LAW: THE INTERPRETATION OF LEGAL TEXTS 152-53
(2012).
12

The Honorable Mark Mann
Oklahoma Senate, District 46

A.G. Opinion
Page 6

Still, section 2-117(D)(2) cannot be construed in such way that interferes with the Commissioner
and OHP exercising necessary discretion to best execute OHP’s “primary law enforcement
authority.” Put simply, it is not a matter of if the Commissioner and OHP reallocate resources; it
is how they do it. The press release indicated that “OHP will continue refining [the] plan for Troop
realignment as the November 1, 2025 transition approaches.” 13 This office cannot speculate on a
plan not yet finalized or implemented. The office can, however, state that any reallocation resulting
in an abdication or abandonment of OHP’s statutory responsibility is impermissible under
Oklahoma law. Taken together, sections 2-117(B)(10) and (D)(2) leave no doubt that the
Legislature intended OHP to be the lead law enforcement agency on all Interstates. In order to lead
on Interstates, OHP must be present.
C.

As DPS’s chief officer, the Governor must ensure that DPS fulfills its statutory
command under section 2-117(D)(2).

This office resolves your third and final question by applying Oklahoma statute in lieu of article
VI, section 8 of the Oklahoma Constitution. Whether the Governor “cause[s] the laws of the State
to be faithfully executed” ultimately turns on factfinding, which is outside the scope of an Attorney
General Opinion. See 74 O.S.2021, § 18b(A)(5); see also 2025 OK AG 3, ¶ 13. And in any event,
this office, like the courts, will “avoid reaching a determination question on the constitutional
basis” if an available answer exists on “an alternative, non-constitutional ground[].” Brown, 2017
OK 13, ¶ 26, 391 P.3d at 119.
The Governor is the chief officer of DPS. 47 O.S.2021, § 2-101(b). And the Governor appoints
the Commissioner of Public Safety who “shall be responsible to [the Governor] for the operation
and administration of . . . [DPS].” Id. Additionally, title 47, section 2-108 states:
The Commissioner is hereby vested with the power and is charged with the duty of
observing, administering, and enforcing the provisions of this title and all laws
regulating the operation of vehicles or the use of the highways, the enforcement
and administration of which are now or hereafter vested in the Department.
By statute, the Governor has power to ensure that the Commissioner operates and administers DPS
as required by law, including the Commissioner’s duties under section 2-108. As a result, the
Governor must oversee the Commissioner in his or her operation and administration of the DPS
and OHP, including its legal duty under section 2-117(D)(2) to act as the “primary law enforcement
authority” on Interstates. 14

13

See supra footnote 3.

This office’s opinions are binding upon state officials affected by them, and they must follow and not
disregard those opinions. 74 O.S.2021, § 18b; State ex rel. York v. Turpen, 1984 OK 26, ¶ 5, 681 P.2d 763, 765. Public
officers must also follow Attorney General opinions until “judicially relieved of compliance.” Indep. Sch. Dist. No.
12 of Okla. Cnty. v. State ex rel. State Bd. of Educ., 2024 OK 39, ¶ 23, 565 P.3d 23, 32–33. A public officer who acts
in conformity with this office's opinion is afforded protection from civil liability. Hendrick v. Walters, 1993 OK 162,
¶ 20, 865 P.2d 1232, 1243. Thus, acting in accordance with this Opinion provides the Governor and DPS
Commissioner a defense to any civil liability.
14

The Honorable Mark Mann
Oklahoma Senate, District 46

A.G. Opinion
Page 7

It is, therefore, the official Opinion of the Attorney General that:
1. Title 47, section 2-117(D)(2) of the Oklahoma Statutes requires the OHP to
exercise “primary law enforcement responsibility” for traffic related
offenses on interstate and defense highways in Oklahoma. While sheriffs,
municipal police departments, and other peace officers have authority over
traffic offenses under section 2-117(D)(1), such authority is supplemental
to the OHP’s primary authority.
2. DPS may not cause OHP to abandon or abdicate its “primary law
enforcement authority” on Interstates. That said, the Commissioner and
OHP possess discretion to execute the implementation of the primary law
enforcement authority on Interstates. Determining whether any particular
Troop reallocation constitutes abdication or abandonment of OHP’s duty
as the primary law enforcement authority is a fact question outside the
scope of an official Attorney General Opinion. See 74 O.S.2021, §
18b(A)(5).
3. Considering title 47, section 2-101(b) of the Oklahoma Statutes, the office
need not address the constitutional duties of the Governor in this opinion.
By virtue of office, the Governor also serves as the DPS’s “chief officer.”
Consequently, the Governor must ensure that the Commissioner oversees
and administers the Department and OHP in the performance of its duty
as the primary law enforcement authority on Interstates in accordance
with section 2-117(D)(2).

GENTNER DRUMMOND
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA

THOMAS R. SCHNEIDER
DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL