Volume 97 — No. 2 — February 2026 ALSO INSIDE: 2026 OBA Officers and New Board Members Take Oaths OBA Day at the Capitol • OBA Leadership Academy Criminal Law
contents February 2026 • Vol. 97 • No. 2 PLUS 40 2026 OBA Officers and New Board Members Take Oaths 44 Ninth OBA Leadership Academy Class Gets Underway By Gigi McCormick 46 Save the Date: OBA Day at the Capitol 48 Applicants for February 2026 Oklahoma Bar Exam 50 Join an OBA Committee This Year! THEME: Criminal Law Editor: Becky Baird FEATURES 8 When Rights Aren’t Enough: A Survivor- Attorney’s Critique of Victims’ Rights in Oklahoma and Beyond By Rhiannon K. Thoreson 16 The Administrative Side of Driving While Under the Influence: The Complicated and Unknown By Sabah Khalaf 22 Admissible at What Cost? Senate Bill 607 and Its Constitutional Concerns By Virginia D. Henson, Margaret A. East and Mahak H. Merchant 30 Habilitation, Not Just Rehabilitation: A New Approach to Justice for Male Offenders David C. Phillips III, Dr. F. Daniel Duffy and Lindy Myers DEPARTMENTS 4 From the President 6 Bar News in a Minute 54 From the Executive Director 56 Law Practice Tips 60 Board of Governors Actions 64 Oklahoma Bar Foundation News 68 Bench & Bar Briefs 72 In Memoriam 75 Editorial Calendar 76 Classified Ads 80 The Back Page PAGE 40 – 2026 OBA Officers and New Board Members Take Oaths
THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL 4 | FEBRUARY 2026 communities where few, if any, lawyers are practicing or where the previous generation of “small town” lawyers are getting set to retire. I look forward to sharing more about the work of this initiative as it gets underway in 2026! Lawyers also serve as critical problem- solvers during moments of conflict or crisis. Families facing divorce, tenants confronting eviction, entrepreneurs starting new businesses and victims seeking protection all turn to lawyers for clarity and stability. By providing sound legal advice early, lawyers often prevent disputes from escalating into prolonged or costly conflicts. This ability to resolve problems efficiently benefits not only individual clients but also courts, businesses and communities. Another essential function lawyers serve is protecting the rule of law. A community’s trust in its institutions depends on the fair and consistent application of laws. We help maintain that trust by holding governments, corporations and individuals accountable. Whether drafting contracts, advising public bodies or challenging unlawful actions, we contribute to a system where rules are known, enforced and respected. That predictability is fundamental to economic development, civic engagement and public confidence. The influence of lawyers frequently extends beyond legal representation. Many attorneys volunteer their time and expertise by serving on nonprofit boards, advising community organizations, coaching youth teams or mentoring students. Our understanding of (continued on page 63) AS LAWYERS, WE KNOW ALL TOO WELL THAT the general public typically associates the legal profession with litigation. I am the first to admit that there are some (often great!) legal dramas, both fictional and nonfictional, played out on movie screens, TV shows and podcasts that tend to cultivate that perception. Even our friends and family may not fully understand that the true impact of lawyers is found in our daily work as advocates, problem-solvers, educators and civic leaders. So, while the work we do in courtrooms is significant, we lawyers also play a vital role in the health and stability of our communities, often in ways that extend far beyond courtrooms and legal briefs. At its core, the legal profession exists to promote access to justice. The law is often complex, intimidating and out of reach for many people without guidance. Lawyers help bridge that gap by explaining rights, navigating procedures and advocating for fair outcomes. Through private representation, legal aid and pro bono work, lawyers ensure the justice system functions not just in theory but in practice. Communities are stronger when residents believe their rights are protected and their voices heard. To that end, I am very pleased to announce the formation of the new OBA Legal Desert Task Force, to be led by OBA PresidentElect Jana Knott. The task force will carry forward the work that began under 2025 OBA President Ken Williams to ensure access to legal services in rural Oklahoma Beyond the Courtroom: The Power of Lawyers in Everyday Life From the President By Amber Peckio Amber Peckio is a solo practitioner with the Amber Law Group of Tulsa. 918-895-7216 amber@amberlawgroup.com
FEBRUARY 2026 | 5 THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL JOURNAL STAFF JANET K. JOHNSON Editor-in-Chief janetj@okbar.org LORI RASMUSSEN Managing Editor lorir@okbar.org EMILY BUCHANAN HART Assistant Editor emilyh@okbar.org LAUREN DAVIS Advertising Manager advertising@okbar.org HAILEY BOYD Communications Specialist haileyb@okbar.org Volume 97 — No. 2 — February 2026 AMBER PECKIO, President, Tulsa; JANA L. KNOTT, President-Elect, El Reno; S. SHEA BRACKEN, Vice President, Edmond; D. KENYON WILLIAMS JR., Immediate Past President, Sperry; MOLLY A. ASPAN, Tulsa; BENJAMIN J. BARKER, Enid; CODY J. COOPER, Oklahoma City; KATE N. DODOO, Oklahoma City; PHILIP D. HIXON, Tulsa; CHRIS D. JONES, Durant; CHAD A. LOCKE, Muskogee; KRISTY E. LOYALL, El Reno; BLAYNE P. NORMAN, Wewoka; WILLIAM LADD OLDFIELD, Ponca City; JEFF D. TREVILLION, Oklahoma City; LUCAS M. WEST, Norman; ALEXANDRA J. GAGE, Chairperson, OBA Young Lawyers Division, Tulsa The Oklahoma Bar Journal (ISSN 0030-1655) is published monthly, except June and July, by the Oklahoma Bar Association, 1901 N. Lincoln Boulevard, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105. Periodicals postage paid at Oklahoma City, Okla. and at additional mailing offices. Subscriptions $85 per year. Law students registered with the OBA and senior members may subscribe for $45; all active members included in dues. Single copies: $8.50 Postmaster Send address changes to the Oklahoma Bar Association, P.O. Box 53036, Oklahoma City, OK 73152-3036. THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL is a publication of the Oklahoma Bar Association. All rights reserved. Copyright© 2026 Oklahoma Bar Association. Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff. Although advertising copy is reviewed, no endorsement of any product or service offered by any advertisement is intended or implied by publication. Advertisers are solely responsible for the content of their ads, and the OBA reserves the right to edit or reject any advertising copy for any reason. Legal articles carried in THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL are selected by the Board of Editors. Information about submissions can be found at www.okbar.org. BAR CENTER STAFF Janet K. Johnson, Executive Director; Gina L. Hendryx, General Counsel; Julie A. Bays, Director of Management Assistance Program; Chris Brumit, Director of Administration; Beverly Petry Lewis, Administrator MCLE Commission; Gigi McCormick, Director of Educational Programs; Lori Rasmussen, Director of Communications; Richard Stevens, Ethics Counsel; Robbin Watson, Director of Information Technology; John Morris Williams, Executive Consultant; Loraine Dillinder Farabow, Jana Harris, Jamie Jagosh, Katherine Ogden, Assistant General Counsels Barbara Acosta, Les Arnold, Gary Berger, Hailey Boyd, Cassie Brickman, Amber Brumit, Cheryl Corey, Lauren Davis, Nickie Day, Ben Douglas, Melody Florence, Matt Gayle, Emily Buchanan Hart, Steve Jagosh, Debra Jenkins, LaRica Krischel, Rhonda Langley, Durrel Lattimore, Renee Montgomery, Jaycee Moseley, Tracy Sanders, Mark Schneidewent, Ben Stokes, Krystal Willis, Laura Willis & Roberta Yarbrough Oklahoma Bar Association 405-416-7000 Toll Free 800-522-8065 FAX 405-416-7001 Continuing Legal Education 405-416-7029 Ethics Counsel 405-416-7055 General Counsel 405-416-7007 Lawyers Helping Lawyers 800-364-7886 Mgmt. Assistance Program 405-416-7008 Mandatory CLE 405-416-7009 Board of Bar Examiners 405-416-7075 Oklahoma Bar Foundation 405-416-7070 www.okbar.org OFFICERS & BOARD OF GOVERNORS BOARD OF EDITORS MELISSA DELACERDA, Stillwater, Chair BECKY R. BAIRD, Miami MARTHA RUPP CARTER, Tulsa MELANIE WILSON RUGHANI, Oklahoma City EVAN A. TAYLOR, Norman MAGDALENA A. WAY, El Reno ALEX C. WILSON, Muskogee DAVID E. YOUNGBLOOD, Atoka
THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL 6 | FEBRUARY 2026 Bar News in a Minute OBA DUES ARE DUE The deadline to pay your 2026 OBA membership dues without a late fee is Tuesday, Feb. 17. Paper statements were mailed to those who had not yet paid. Please make your dues payment today! Visit your MyOKBar page to remit dues online. REPORT YOUR 2025 MCLE CREDITS BY FEB. 17 The deadline to earn your required credit for 2025 was Dec. 31. The deadline to report your earned credit or a qualified exemption for 2025 is Tuesday, Feb. 17. Unless you are reporting an exemption, the minimum annual requirement is 10 general credits and 2 ethics credits for a total of 12 credits. All credit must be OK MCLE approved. Not sure how much credit you still need? Access your MCLE information by logging in to your MyOKBar page and clicking “My MCLE.” Still need credit? Check out great CLE offerings at ok.webcredenza.com. If you have questions about your credit, email mcle@okbar.org. SUPREME COURT ANNOUNCES UPDATE TO E-FILING SYSTEM The Supreme Court of Oklahoma announced a major enhancement to its electronic filing (e-filing) system. Effective immediately, attorneys and approved filers may initiate new civil cases electronically through the existing e-filing portal on the Oklahoma State Courts Network website, www.oscn.net. This functionality is currently available for civil case types only in counties using the Oklahoma Court Information System. E-filing, which was previously limited to filings in existing civil cases, now supports the electronic submission of case-initiating documents, streamlining workflows and reducing the need for in-person or mail-in filings at the courthouse. To access the system, visit www.oscn.net and select E-Filing. Registration is required, and attorneys must have an Oklahoma bar number in good standing. All filings must comply with the Oklahoma E-Filing Technical Standards and applicable local court rules. A NEW WAY TO EARN MCLE CREDIT Recently, the Oklahoma Supreme Court amended the rules for mandatory continuing legal education to include writing scholarly articles that are published in the Oklahoma Bar Journal. The MCLE Commission will award 6 credits per published article for each contributing author. Contact OBA Communications Director and Oklahoma Bar Journal Managing Editor Lori Rasmussen to learn more about this opportunity. Visit https://bit.ly/3ZepRZ3 to read the Supreme Court order. SAVE THE DATE FOR THE OBA MIDYEAR MEETING Save the date for the OBA Midyear Meeting! This year’s meeting, which will be held June 17-19 at the OKANA Resort in Oklahoma City, will focus on CLE opportunities for all practitioners as well as programming for solo and smallfirm practitioners. Just like the previous Solo & Small Firm Conference, the Midyear Meeting will take place in a casual, family-friendly resort setting. We can’t wait to see you there! SAVE THE DATE: OBA DAY AT THE CAPITOL On Tuesday, March 17, join us for this year’s OBA Day at the Capitol. The morning will kick off with speakers covering bills of interest, how to talk to legislators, legislative updates and more. Attendees will then have the opportunity to visit with legislators. Be sure to save the date and keep your eye out at okbar.org/dayatthecapitol for more information on how to register!
FEBRUARY 2026 | 7 THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL CONNECT WITH THE OBA THROUGH SOCIAL MEDIA Are you following the OBA on social media? Keep up to date on future CLE, upcoming events and the latest information about the Oklahoma legal community. Connect with us on LinkedIn, Facebook and Instagram. IMPORTANT UPCOMING DATES The Oklahoma Bar Center will be closed Monday, Feb. 16, in observance of Presidents Day. OBA Day at the Capitol will be held Tuesday, March 17, from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., at the Oklahoma Bar Center in Oklahoma City. Be sure to docket the OBA Midyear Meeting, to be held at the OKANA Resort in Oklahoma City on June 17-19. COURT OF EXISTING CLAIMS PANEL APPOINTED TO SERVE IN 2026 On Nov. 20, a three-judge panel was appointed to serve on the Court of Existing Claims (CEC) Division of the Court of Civil Appeals. Their terms began Jan. 1. This panel will serve through Dec. 31, 2026. This panel consists of: LHL DISCUSSION GROUPS TO HOST MARCH MEETINGS Monthly Discussion Group: The Lawyers Helping Lawyers monthly discussion group will meet Thursday, March 5, in Oklahoma City at the office of Tom Cummings, 701 NW 13th St. The group will also meet Thursday, March 12, in Tulsa at the office of Scott Goode, 1437 S. Boulder Ave., Ste. 1200. Women’s Discussion Group: The Tulsa women’s discussion group will meet Tuesday, March 17, at the office of Scott Goode, 1437 S. Boulder Ave., Ste. 1200; the Oklahoma City women’s discussion group will also meet Thursday, March 26, at the first-floor conference room of the Oil Center, 2601 NW Expressway. Each meeting is facilitated by committee members and a licensed mental health professional. The small group discussions are intended to give group leaders and participants the opportunity to ask questions, provide support and share information with fellow bar members to improve their lives – professionally and personally. Visit www.okbar.org/lhl for more information, and keep an eye on the OBA events calendar at www.okbar.org/events for upcoming discussion group meeting dates. 2026 SOVEREIGNTY SYMPOSIUM The 38th annual Sovereignty Symposium, presented by the OCU School of Law, will be held June 15-16 at the OKANA Resort in Oklahoma City. The symposium is currently inviting proposals for panel presentations and writing and poster competitions. More information about the symposium will be announced soon. Visit www.sovereigntysymposium.com to learn more about the event. LET US FEATURE YOUR WORK We want to feature your work on “The Back Page” and the Oklahoma Bar Journal cover! All entries must relate to the practice of law and may include articles, reflections or other insights. Poetry, photography and artwork connected to the legal profession are also welcome. Photographs and artwork relating to featured topics may also be published on the cover of the journal. Email submissions of about 500 words or high-resolution images to OBA Communications Director Lori Rasmussen at lorir@okbar.org. Presiding Judge Robert D. Bell Judge Thomas E. Prince Judge Jane P. Wiseman Judge James Huber (Alternate)
FEBRUARY 2026 | 9 THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff. Criminal Law When Rights Aren’t Enough By Rhiannon K. Thoreson Years later, I would enter law school with that experience etched into my bones. I didn’t become an attorney out of academic curiosity or ambition alone; I became one because I wanted to understand the system that had failed me and to help shape a better one. That dual perspective, as both a survivor and an attorney, has shaped every part of my legal career, even though I don’t practice in the criminal arena. HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF VICTIMS’ RIGHTS Historically, American criminal law positioned crime as a conflict between the state and the accused.1 Victims were largely sidelined. Their injuries gave rise to public, not personal, claims, leaving them with no formal voice in court. That began to change during the 1970s and 1980s when survivors, feminist legal theorists and grassroots advocates pushed for legal recognition of victims’ interests.2 By the mid-1980s, every state had adopted some form of victims’ rights legislation. The 1982 President’s Task Force on Victims of Crime recommended sweeping reforms, and in 2004, Congress passed the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA), codified at 18 U.S.C. §3771. This act created enforceable rights in federal cases, including the rights to be notified, present and heard during major stages of the criminal process. States followed suit, with more than 30 enacting constitutional amendments. Oklahoma joined this movement in 1996, adding Article II, §34 to its state constitution and enacting the Oklahoma Victim’s Rights Act.3 VICTIMS’ RIGHTS IN OKLAHOMA: A LEGAL FRAMEWORK Oklahoma’s statutory and constitutional framework for victims’ rights is detailed and promising on paper.4 Some of the rights crime victims are entitled to include: Being informed in writing of their rights Being notified and present at critical hearings Being heard regarding bail, plea deals, sentencing and parole Conferring with the prosecutor upon request Submitting a victim impact statement Asserting their rights in court through an attorney Seeking and receiving restitution I BECAME A CRIME VICTIM LONG BEFORE I EVER BECAME A LAWYER. Before I understood the structure of a courtroom or the language of legal procedure, I knew what it felt like to sit in a courtroom, trembling and confused. I knew what it meant to be retraumatized by silence, delays and indifference. I learned the hard way that surviving the crime was only the beginning and that the criminal justice system could compound the trauma, even as it claimed to serve victims. A Survivor-Attorney’s Critique of Victims’ Rights in Oklahoma and Beyond
THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL 10 | FEBRUARY 2026 Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff. Additional protections apply to specific categories of victims. Survivors of sexual assault are entitled to forensic medical exams at no cost,5 and those seeking protective orders may do so even when courts are closed.6 Victims of human trafficking may not be fined or jailed for acts committed under coercion and are entitled to shelter and legal support.7 THE ENFORCEMENT GAP: WHEN RIGHTS ARE THEORETICAL Despite these legal guarantees, victims in Oklahoma and across the U.S. often find that asserting their rights is easier said than done. Too frequently, they are: Not informed of plea deals until after they occur Discouraged or prevented from giving victim impact statements Excluded from sentencing hearings Ignored when requesting restitution or safety protections These experiences are not just anecdotal. A 2023 analysis by the National Crime Victim Law Institute8 identifies systemic failures in victims’ rights implementation, highlighting how courts and prosecutors often overlook statutory rights to be present, informed and heard. In Oklahoma, the statutory language allows victims to assert their rights “in any trial or appellate court,”9 but courts rarely, if ever, grant standing.10 There is no state-level enforcement body. No victim ombudsman. And limited to no precedent holding state actors accountable for noncompliance. BARRIERS TO ENFORCEMENT The reasons victims’ rights go unenforced are both systemic and cultural: Lack of Awareness: Victims are frequently unaware of their rights, especially in the immediate aftermath of trauma.11 No Legal Representation: Most victims are not assigned counsel and cannot afford to hire their own. Prosecutors represent the state, not the victim.12 Judicial Resistance: Some judges minimize victims’ participatory rights, seeing them as advisory or inconvenient to court efficiency.13 Prosecutorial Discretion: Prosecutors are not always inclined to consult with victims on plea deals, even when required by statute.14 Cultural Inertia: The criminal justice system was never built with victims in mind. And institutional change has been slow.15 THE ETHICAL TENSION FOR PROSECUTORS While prosecutors are often assumed to advocate for victims, their legal and ethical duties lie with the state. Their primary role is to represent the interests of the government, not any individual party. This structure ensures due process for the accused, but it also creates an inherent tension when victims believe the prosecutor is “their attorney,” only to discover that their needs and the state’s priorities do not always align. This tension can manifest in several ways: Plea Negotiations: Prosecutors may enter into plea agreements without first consulting victims, even in serious felony cases. Although Oklahoma law gives victims the right to confer with the state’s attorney, this is often treated as discretionary. Trial Strategy Decisions: Victims may hope to influence charging decisions or sentencing recommendations, particularly when they involve safety concerns or repeat offenders. But prosecutors, bound by evidentiary and strategic constraints, often make decisions without victim input or in direct opposition to it. These choices can feel dismissive, especially when not explained. Resource Constraints: High caseloads and limited staffing can lead to efficiency-driven decisions that marginalize victim involvement, even when the prosecutor is well-meaning. Ultimately, prosecutors walk a fine ethical line. They must balance victim engagement with their obligation to ensure a fair trial, maintain impartiality and conserve public resources. But without mechanisms for independent victim representation, this balance often tilts away from victims, leaving them without meaningful recourse when their concerns are sidelined. To bridge this gap, many district attorneys’ offices employ victim-witness advocates, staff who are supposed to support victims by providing information, logistical help and emotional support.
FEBRUARY 2026 | 11 THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff. These advocates play a vital role. But they are not lawyers, and they are not independent. Their role is still situated within the prosecutorial office, meaning their advocacy is limited by the strategy, bandwidth and discretion of the prosecuting attorney. This structure leaves victims without a truly independent voice in proceedings. When a victim’s wishes diverge from the state’s litigation goals, there is no neutral advocate empowered to assert those interests in court. Unlike defendants, who are constitutionally guaranteed legal representation, victims must rely on the goodwill of the prosecutor or seek private counsel at their own expense, which most cannot afford. The absence of independent, state-funded legal representation means that victims’ rights remain contingent, not guaranteed. For a system that purports to honor victims’ dignity and participation, this is a profound and unresolved contradiction. A SURVIVOR’S PERSPECTIVE FROM INSIDE THE SYSTEM Before I studied case law or stepped foot into a courtroom as a legal professional, I was a victim of violent crime. Like many survivors, I entered the justice system not as a willing participant but as someone seeking safety, answers and some form of accountability. What I encountered instead was a system that, despite an evolving legal framework, often treated me as an afterthought. I was never even told that I had any rights as a victim. And being a young 19-year-old college student completely unaware of how the court system worked, I had never heard of victims’ rights. I was not given notice of hearings that I had a right to be present for, nor was I consistently notified of plea negotiations despite statutory mandates requiring such notice. Most significantly, I was denied the right to prepare and read a victim impact statement at sentencing. Later, when I learned about victims’ rights, I understood in retrospect what had gone wrong. It wasn’t because the laws weren’t there but because no one had enforced them. The system had failed to operationalize the rights afforded to me. There was no accountability, no remedy for noncompliance and no one assigned to advocate solely on my behalf. It is a troubling paradox: Victims are increasingly granted participatory rights under the law, but those rights are often honored only when someone with legal standing insists on them. Without enforcement mechanisms, these rights amount to well-intentioned promises, not legal guarantees. Even now, years later, I regularly hear from other victims who share similar experiences – who weren’t told they had any rights, whose victim impact statements were never read by the court, whose restitution claims were ignored or who were told by prosecutors that their input was unnecessary or unwelcome. These are not outliers; they are symptoms of a system that still struggles to treat victims as parties with agency. As attorneys, we understand the importance of procedural due process for the accused. But due process for victims, though not identical, demands its own rigor. It includes timely notice, the opportunity to be heard and the right to participate meaningfully in proceedings that impact their safety, property and emotional well-being. When victims’ rights are denied, there are few clear remedies. Oklahoma law theoretically allows victims to “assert [their rights] individually, through an attorney or lawful representative, or by request, through the attorney for the state.”16 But courts have been reluctant to grant victims It is a troubling paradox: Victims are increasingly granted participatory rights under the law, but those rights are often honored only when someone with legal standing insists on them. Without enforcement mechanisms, these rights amount to well-intentioned promises, not legal guarantees.
THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL 12 | FEBRUARY 2026 Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff. standing to enforce these rights independently, and there is little precedent supporting private causes of action for enforcement. Even the federal CVRA17 provides limited avenues for recourse, with most appellate remedies being discretionary rather than mandatory. What my experience taught me, both personally and professionally, is that legal rights without enforcement are symbolic at best and retraumatizing at worst. We would never tolerate this level of procedural disregard for a defendant. We should not tolerate it for a victim. CIVIL REMEDIES: THE ILLUSION OF LEGAL RECOURSE One of the greatest challenges in enforcing victims’ rights is the near-total absence of viable civil remedies. While Oklahoma’s constitution permits victims to assert their rights in trial or appellate court, there is no private cause of action expressly created for victims whose rights are ignored or violated.18 Unlike civil rights statutes – such as 42 U.S.C. §1983, which allows individuals to sue state actors for constitutional violations – there is no analogous mechanism in Oklahoma or federal law that allows victims to recover damages or obtain injunctive relief when their statutory (or state constitutional) rights are denied. Victims who attempt to assert claims under §1983 face significant barriers: Courts have routinely held that victims’ rights laws do not create enforceable federal rights because those laws lack the “rights‑creating” language required by Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe,19 a threshold that victims’ rights provisions fail to meet. Prosecutorial immunity often shields district attorneys and their staff from liability, even when they fail to honor victims’ rights.20 Judicial immunity bars suits against judges who exclude or silence victims, even in contravention of statutory guarantees.21 The federal CVRA provides a mechanism to petition appellate courts for relief, but it offers no damages, no fee recovery and is often considered too burdensome or limited in scope to provide meaningful redress.22 In other states, victims can sometimes seek enforcement through mandamus or declaratory relief, but even these remedies are time-sensitive and procedurally complex. For most victims, the practical effect is this: When rights are denied, there is no accessible or effective pathway to hold the system accountable. This lack of remedy undermines the very purpose of codifying victims’ rights – rights that exist only on paper and are functionally immune from challenge are not true rights. They are policy preferences. And until victims can access the courts to enforce them meaningfully, the promise of justice remains unfulfilled. OPPORTUNITIES FOR REFORM Reform must address both the legal and practical dimensions of enforcement. Key recommendations include: Appointment of Victims’ Rights Counsel: In serious felony cases, victims should be assigned counsel to assert and protect their rights. Statutory Remedies for Violations: Victims need clearly defined remedies when rights are denied, such as exclusion of a victim from a hearing or failure to confer on plea bargains. Standing and Participation: Courts must clarify and enforce victims’ standing to file motions and seek relief. States should adopt standing rules similar to the federal CVRA. Judicial Training: Mandatory continuing legal education (CLE) on victims’ rights and trauma-informed practice should be required. State-Level Oversight: Oklahoma should establish an independent victims’ rights ombudsman with authority to investigate complaints and enforce compliance. Technology for Notifications: Create centralized electronic systems that notify victims of all proceedings, case updates and outcomes. Funding for Community Advocacy: Increase Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) and state grant funds to support local nonprofits that serve and accompany victims. Comparative Policy Review: Other states, like Oregon, Arizona and Ohio, offer important lessons. Oregon provides state-funded legal representation to help victims assert their rights in criminal proceedings.23 Victims in Oregon can
FEBRUARY 2026 | 13 THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff. seek enforcement of their rights through appointed legal advocates, and the Oregon Constitution allows for meaningful participation and recourse.24 Arizona’s constitution also includes enforceable victims’ rights, and the state has implemented a victim ombudsman and legislative oversight to track compliance.25 Under Arizona Rev. Stat. §13‑4437, victims are empowered to enforce these rights by filing motions, special actions or even seeking damages from governmental entities. Crucially, the Arizona attorney general’s office maintains a victims’ rights compliance administrator who serves as an ombudsman, takes complaints, conducts investigations and promotes compliance across state and county agencies.26 Ohio similarly supports enforcement through court-appointed legal assistance, and victims (or their representatives) can legally challenge violations of their rights through interlocutory appeals or writs and have courts appoint counsel when necessary.27 These states demonstrate what is possible when legal rights are matched by infrastructure, funding and political will. By contrast, Oklahoma’s constitutional provisions are more aspirational than actionable. Without a victims’ rights ombudsman or guaranteed access to legal counsel, enforcement is inconsistent and largely reliant on prosecutorial discretion. Establishing statutory mechanisms for enforcement, modeled after other states’ approaches, would dramatically strengthen victim protections in Oklahoma. Victims’ rights shouldn’t vary so drastically depending on the state in which a crime occurs. True justice requires consistency and accountability. CONCLUSION Victims of crime deserve more than symbolic rights. They deserve the ability to participate meaningfully, be treated with dignity and have recourse when the system fails them. As members of the bar, we are gatekeepers to justice, not just for defendants but for all who come before the court. It is time to take victims’ rights seriously, not just in theory but in action. We can look to states like Oregon, Arizona and Ohio for models of meaningful enforcement, and we must ask: What would it look like if Oklahoma followed suit? To begin closing the gap between promise and practice, attorneys and policymakers can: Support legislation that creates a state victims’ rights ombudsman with investigatory authority;
THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL 14 | FEBRUARY 2026 Advocate for the appointment of victims’ rights counsel in violent felony cases, especially when plea deals or sentencing decisions are at stake; Push for court rules or statutes that clarify victims’ standing to file motions and seek judicial remedies; Partner with local bar associations to offer CLE programming on trauma-informed practice and victims’ rights enforcement; Encourage public defenders and prosecutors alike to adopt written policies on victim engagement; and Vote for and support district attorneys who prioritize robust victim participation. The question is no longer whether victims deserve these rights. The question is whether we, as legal professionals, are willing to stand behind them. Only then can we fulfill the promise of a truly balanced, equitable legal system. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Tulsa lawyer Rhiannon K. Thoreson is of counsel with Rosenstein, Fist & Ringold. Her practice focuses on education law and public entities. She is also a survivor of violent crime and writes on the intersection of law, lived experience and systemic reform. ENDNOTES 1. Douglas E. Beloof, “The Third Wave of Crime Victims’ Rights: Standing, Remedy, and Enforcement,” 2005 BYU L. Rev. 255, 258. 2. See Erin Daly and Jeremy Sarkin, Reconciliation in Divided Societies: Finding Common Ground, 142 (Univ. of Pa. Press 2007); and Mary P. Koss, “The Crime Victims’ Rights Movement: Past, Present and Future,” 39 Pepperdine L. Rev. 165, 166-70 (2011) (describing how feminist legal advocates catalyzed systemic change in how victims were treated). 3. 21 O.S. §142A-1 et seq. 4. See Okla. Const. art. II, §34 and 21 O.S. §142A-1 et seq. 5. 21 O.S. §142A-3. 6. 22 O.S. §60.2. 7. 21 O.S. §748.2. 8. “Ten Common Victims’ Rights,” available at https://bit.ly/3LzJgAw. 9. Okla. Const. art. II, §34(A)(10). 10. Significantly, there are no published cases in Oklahoma addressing victims’ rights. 11. U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime, Vision 21: Transforming Victim Services (2013), at 16-18. 12. Beloof, 2005 BYU L. Rev. at 263-64. 13. Mary Margaret Giannini, “Equal Rights for Equal Rites? Victim Allocution, Defendant Allocution, and the Crime Victims’ Rights Act,” 26 Yale L. & Pol’y Rev. 431, 457-59 (2008). 14. Deborah Tuerkheimer, “Judging Women,” 119 Mich. L. Rev. 1355, 1381-83 (2021). 15. Koss, 39 Pepp. L. Rev. at 168-70. 16. Okla. Const. art. II, §34(A)(10). 17. 18 U.S.C. §3771. 18. Okla. Const. art. II, §34(B). 19. 536 U.S. 273 (2002). 20. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976). 21. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978). 22. See 18 U.S.C. §3771(d)(3). 23. Oregon Revised Statutes §147.500 et seq. 24. Oregon Const. art. I, §42. 25. Ariz. Const. art. II, §2.1. 26. See Arizona attorney general’s website, available at https://bit.ly/4aLFoGQ. 27. Ohio Rev. Code §2930.01 et seq. Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff. The question is no longer whether victims deserve these rights. The question is whether we, as legal professionals, are willing to stand behind them.
THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL 16 | FEBRUARY 2026 Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff. Criminal Law The Administrative Side of Driving While Under the Influence: The Complicated and Unknown By Sabah Khalaf
FEBRUARY 2026 | 17 THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff. Every driver operating a motorized vehicle on a public road has agreed to follow a few rules. They have agreed to obey “the laws of the road” by following traffic signs and stoplights and operating their vehicles with due care. Drivers implicitly agree to abstain from engaging in reckless conduct or being inattentive while operating their vehicles. In Oklahoma, drivers agree to a test of their “blood, breath, saliva, or urine to determine the presence or concentration of alcohol or other intoxicating substances if arrested for offenses related to driving under the influence or if involved in a traffic accident resulting in serious injury or death.”2 Refusal to submit to the state’s test or having a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.02% or above if under 21 years of age or over 0.08% if over 21 years of age allows Service Oklahoma (SOK) to revoke their license for a period of 180 days if the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to believe the driver was operating the vehicle under the influence.3 The driver, after an arrest for driving under the influence (DUI), can contest administrative action by SOK by filing an appeal before the district court in order to keep their driving privileges.4 Winning an implied consent hearing, also known as a driver’s license appeal, is imperative for a driver to keep valid driving privileges without an interlock restriction. WHAT IS AN IMPLIED CONSENT HEARING? Implied consent hearings are administrative proceedings that occur after a driver is arrested for DUI or actual physical control (APC) of a motor vehicle if the arresting officer submits an officer’s impaired driving affidavit to SOK reflecting that the driver either refused to comply with the implied consent laws or had a BAC over the legal limit. These hearings are civil in nature and distinct from any criminal charges related to driving while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. However, the basis for the hearing arises from the criminal act of driving under the influence or APC. The primary purpose of these hearings is to determine whether a revocation of the driver’s license is justified based on specific statutory criteria. The hearing focuses on: That the officer had reasonable grounds to believe the person was operating a motor vehicle while under the influence; “A person’s claim to a driver’s license is a protectable property interest that may not be terminated without due process of law under the United States Constitution. Oklahoma’s Constitution provides no less protection.”1
THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL 18 | FEBRUARY 2026 Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff. That the person was lawfully arrested; If timely requested, the person was not denied a breath or blood test; The specimen was obtained within two hours of arrest; The person was advised that their driving privileges would be revoked if they tested over the legal limit; and The test result, in fact, reflects the alcohol concentration.5 PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF IMPLIED CONSENT LAWS IN OKLAHOMA The administrative codes and statutes governing implied consent hearings are primarily found in Title 47 of the Oklahoma Statutes. Title 47 O.S. §6-211 provides an avenue and requirements for a district court appeal to contest a driver’s license revocation. Title 47 O.S. §759 establishes the regulatory power of the Board of Tests for Alcohol and Drug Influence regarding the prescription of “uniform standards and conditions for, and to approve satisfactory methods, procedures, techniques, devices, equipment and records for, tests and analyses and to prescribe and approve the requisite education and training for the performance of tests or analyses of breath to determine the breath alcohol concentration.”6 The procedures for appealing a driver’s license revocation have dramatically changed in the last few years. Under the old system, which was handled by the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety and had been in place for decades, the revocation process began when a police officer made an arrest and served the licensee with what was called an “officer’s affidavit and notice of revocation.” The affidavit contained a great deal of information about the incident. It covered the date and time of the alleged offense, the name of the arresting officer, the name of the arresting officer’s agency or department, a description of the driving behavior, a description of the person’s physical condition and information about the breath test result or refusal. This information was the basis for the revocation. Prior to 2019, if a driver had been arrested for DUI and did not take the state’s test, they only had 15 days to request an administrative hearing or face an automatic license suspension. However, in 2019, the Oklahoma Legislature passed a bill creating the Impaired Driver Accountability Program (IDAP). IDAP is an alternative route a driver, who is subject to a driver’s license revocation, may exercise following a DUI arrest. This program allows participants to retain driving privileges by installing an ignition interlock device (IID) in their vehicle rather than losing their driving privileges.7 If one is enrolled in IDAP, they are required to pay certain fees, install approved ignition interlock devices and follow all the other requirements.8 Furthermore, the Oklahoma Board of Tests is the controlling body over the program and is able to “promulgate rules necessary to regulate ignition interlock devices and the providers of such devices, which shall be subject to suspension or revocation in accordance with the rules promulgated by the Board.”9 BURDEN OF PROOF AND PROCEDURES SOK has the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, in driver’s license proceedings.10 Driver’s license appeals are exempt from the Oklahoma Pleading Code and the Discovery Code.11 Driver’s license appeals are not exempt from the Oklahoma Evidence Code.12 After an arrest for DUI or APC, the arresting agency is tasked with providing SOK with information so that SOK can determine if taking action is warranted. SOK has 180 days from the arrest or from the results of a blood draw to take action.13 If SOK does not take action within 180 days, no action can be taken against the licensee for the DUI or APC arrest unless they are convicted of DUI or APC.14 SOK is required to send a notice to a licensee, and it is generally mailed to the address on file with SOK (generally the address on their driver’s license). If a licensee gets a notice from SOK within 180 days of their arrest, they have 30 days to file a district court appeal (DCA), or they lose that right forever.15 A licensee also has the option to forgo a DCA and enroll in IDAP. If the licensee chooses to enroll in IDAP, they are required to comply with the rules of the Oklahoma Board of Tests by having an interlock device installed in any vehicle they drive.16 If the licensee exercises their right to a DCA and wins, they do not lose their driving privileges, and there is no action taken by SOK.17 If they exercise their right to a DCA and lose, they’re required to participate in IDAP before they’re eligible to reinstate their driver’s license without restrictions.18 A DCA is essentially a bench trial where SOK is required to prove the elements contained in 47 O.S. §§751-759. SOK is not required to disclose which witnesses or evidence will be introduced at the trial and generally does not
FEBRUARY 2026 | 19 THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff. provide exhibits until moments before the trial begins. Despite being the defendant in the action, the burden of proof is solely with SOK, and they start the trial by calling witnesses or introducing evidence. Once SOK rests, the licensee is allowed to present witnesses or evidence, and the court generally renders its opinion at the conclusion on the record. If the court finds that SOK did not meet its burden, the court will sustain the licensee’s petition and set aside the revocation. If the court finds that SOK met its burden, the court generally overrules the petition and sustains the revocation. The revocation period is generally 180 days for a first offense, one year for a second offense and two years for a third offense within 10 years.19 Additionally, “the revocation of the driving privilege of any person under Section 6-205, 6-205.1, 753, or 754 of this title shall not run concurrently with any other revocation of driving privilege under Section 6-205, 6-205.1, 753, or 754 of this title resulting from a different incident.”20 ATTORNEY FEES If SOK takes action against a licensee that does not serve a reasonable basis or is frivolous, SOK could be on the hook for attorney fees and costs.21 For example, in Johnson v. State, ex. rel. DPS, DPS erroneously issued a driver’s license revocation notice after the plaintiff’s driver’s license revocation had already been set aside.22 Mr. Johnson filed a driver’s license appeal, and DPS restored his driving privileges upon receipt of the appeal.23 The trial court found that there was no reasonable basis for this revocation and awarded Mr. Johnson his attorney fees and costs, including expert witness fees, incurred in the action. The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals found that the trial court properly held that DPS had no reasonable basis for suspending the plaintiff’s driver’s license and affirmed the trial court’s award.24 The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals based its decision in Johnson on a case where DPS admitted it lacked authority to suspend an out-of-state driver’s license.25 However, DPS revoked Mr. Miller’s driving privileges even after case law directed that his privileges be restored.26 The trial court, and later the appellate court, determined that DPS’s actions were unreasonable and awarded Mr. Miller his attorney fees and costs.27 In 2022, the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals affirmed that DPS acted unreasonably when it suspended the plaintiff’s driving privileges based on pending traffic violations that had not become convictions.28 In Currington, an abstract was sent to DPS noting three convictions for traffic violations. DPS issued a letter and notice of suspension based on these convictions.29 However, this abstract was incorrect, and they were pending matters rather than convictions.30 Mr. Currington and his attorneys attempted to contact DPS and rectify the situation but were unsuccessful. Immediately before the suspension took effect, Mr. Currington filed his appeal. The trial court determined that the suspension by DPS was unreasonable, and the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals affirmed.31 In January 2025, the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court and found that the actions by SOK in revoking a driver’s license without proper notice lacked a reasonable basis and were subject to attorney fees and costs.32 On Dec. 17, 2022, Mr. White was arrested for suspicion of DUI, and a blood draw was performed.33 The notice provided to Mr. White at the time of his arrest advised that he would receive a notice informing him of the commencement of a revocation.34 Mr. White heard nothing for over a year, and on Jan. 3,
THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL 20 | FEBRUARY 2026 Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff. 2024, SOK mailed him a notice and order of revocation that was dated June 23, 2023.35 Despite not sending the notice for over six months from the date it was created, SOK did, in fact, revoke Mr. White’s driving privileges on the original date of the notice without giving him meaningful notice.36 The appellate court determined the actions by SOK did not provide Mr. White with notice, and, thus, those actions were taken without a reasonable basis or were frivolous.37 Consequently, SOK was held liable for Mr. White’s reasonable attorney fees and costs. CONCLUSION The administrative side of a DUI or APC is an ever-changing landscape through legislative changes and procedural challenges. It is a highly nuanced area of law that requires thorough research and commitment to stay current on the changes and their applications. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Sabah Khalaf is the owner and managing attorney of the Khalaf Law Firm in Tulsa. His practice is focused on high-stakes litigation and criminal matters. Mr. Khalaf practices in federal, state, tribal and municipal criminal courts from prefiling investigations to trial. ENDNOTES 1. Hunsucker v. Fallin, 2017 OK 100, ¶¶14-15; see also Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 542 (1971). 2. 47 O.S. §751 (A). 3. 47 O.S. §754 (B). 4. 47 O.S. §754 (C). 5. 47 O.S. §754; Smith v. State ex rel. Dept. of Pub. Safety, 680 P.2d 365, 368, 1984 OK 16, ¶6 (Okla. 1984). 6. 47 O.S. §759. 7. 47 O.S. §6-212.5. 8. Id. 9. Id. 10. Hollis v. State, ex rel. Dept. of Public Safety, 2008 OK 31, ¶8, 183 P.3d 996, 999. 11. 47 O.S. §6-211(A). 12. Muratore v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 2014 OK 3, 320 P.3d 1024 (2014). 13. 47 O.S. §754. 14. 47 O.S. §6-205. 15. 47 O.S. §6-211. 16. 47 O.S. §6-212.5. 17. 47 O.S. §6-211(H). 18. 47 O.S. §6-205.1(A)(1). 19. Id. 20. Id. 21. 12 O.S. §941. 22. Johnson v. State, ex. rel. DPS, 2018 OK CIV APP 4, ¶2. 23. Id. at ¶3. 24. Johnson v. State, ex. rel. DPS, 2018 OK CIV APP 4. 25. Miller v. State ex. rel. DPS, 1996 OK CIV APP 71. 26. Id. 27. Id. 28. Currington v. State ex. rel., DPS. 2022 OK Civ. App. 1. 29. Id. 30. Id. 31. Id. 32. White v. State, ex. rel. Serv. Okla., 2025 OK CIV APP 20, at ¶¶1 and 14. 33. Id. at ¶2. 34. Id. 35. Id. at ¶4. 36. Id. 37. Id. at ¶11.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTk3MQ==