Know your vote. Take a look at your sample ballot now!

Sheila A. Condren

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Local Politics Image.jpg

Ballotpedia provides comprehensive election coverage of the 100 largest cities in America by population as well as mayoral, city council, and district attorney election coverage in state capitals outside of the 100 largest cities. This judge is outside of that coverage scope and does not receive scheduled updates.


BP-Initials-UPDATED.png
Ballotpedia does not currently cover this office or maintain this page. Please contact us with any updates.
Sheila A. Condren

Silhouette Placeholder Image.png

Do you have a photo that could go here? Click here to submit it for this profile!


Oklahoma Judicial District 12, Rogers County Associate
Tenure
Present officeholder

Education

Bachelor's

Kansas State University, 1984

Law

University of Tulsa, 1987


Sheila A. Condren is an Oklahoma associate district judge for Rogers County, which is located in District 12. She first joined the court in 2006.[1] She was re-elected in 2014 after running unopposed. Her current term expired on January 13, 2019.[2]

Elections

2014

See also: Oklahoma judicial elections, 2014
Condren ran for re-election to the 12th District Court.
As an unopposed candidate, she was automatically re-elected without appearing on the ballot. [2] 

2010

Condren was re-elected to the district court after running unopposed.[3]

Main article: Oklahoma judicial elections, 2010

Education

Condren received her B.A. from Kansas State University in 1984, and her J.D. from the University of Tulsa in 1987.[4]

Career

Noteworthy cases

Cops on film: Police dashcam videos can't be kept confidential (2013)

The Oklahoma Supreme Court rejected a request from the City of Claremore to review a Court of Civil Appeals' opinion which found a Claremore Police Department dashcam video was a public record that must be released in accordance with Oklahoma's Open Records Act.[5]


Attorneys representing Richard Stangland, a resident of Claremore, sued the city after police department officials refused to turn over a dashcam video filmed during his arrest. The video was taken in March 2011, and Stangland was later charged with aggravated driving under the influence of alcohol. In August 2011, he entered a plea of guilty to a DUI charge and received a sentence of 18 months, which was deferred.[5]


During a trial to obtain the dashcam video in the district court for Rogers County, an attorney for Stangland, Stephen Fabian, argued that under Oklahoma's Open Records Act, videos and sound recordings are considered public records and must be released if they are requested. However, an attorney for the city, Matt Ballard, said dashcam videos are evidence and can be kept confidential. Stan Brown, Claremore's police chief, testified that according to an internal policy he established, the department did not provide dashcam videos in response to public records requests.[6]


Associate district judge Sheila A. Condren found in favor of the City of Claremore and Chief Brown. In her decision, Condren agreed that since the dashcam video was a "direct piece of evidence" it could not be considered a public record, as defined by the Oklahoma Open Records Act, and the police department was not required to release it. She also found that since Stangland's attorneys provided the wrong date of arrest on the initial request for the dashcam video, the city did not technically violate the Open Records Act.[6]


Stangland's attorneys appealed the trial court's decision to the Court of Civil Appeals. The appellate court reversed the decision and noted Condren's finding that the city technically complied with the Open Records Act was not supported by the evidence presented in the case. Chief Judge Robert D. Bell wrote in the opinion:

[The City of Claremore] failed to show Stangland's arrest video falls within any exception to disclosure under the Act. [The city's] argument- and the trial court's holding-that the video is exempt because it could be used as evidence in a subsequent criminal prosecution is without legal support. There is no such exemption enumerated in the Act.[6][7]

See also

External links

Footnotes