Oklahoma County deputies must keep taking detainees to court, but the larger dispute over which agency should handle the job remains unresolved.
OKLAHOMA CITY — The Oklahoma County Sheriff’s Office must continue transporting jail detainees to court without the monthly payments it previously received from the county jail trust, a judge ruled Friday.
But Canadian County District Judge Paul Hesse refused to dismiss Sheriff Tommie Johnson III’s larger lawsuit, allowing him to continue arguing that transportation should be the responsibility of the Oklahoma County Criminal Justice Authority, commonly called the jail trust.
The split decision came in three orders issued in Oklahoma County District Court. Johnson lost his immediate requests for continued payments and approval of outside attorneys but kept alive his effort to resolve which agency is legally responsible for transporting detainees.
Payments will not resume for now
The Sheriff’s Office previously received $63,912.24 per month — nearly $767,000 a year — to transport detainees and staff courthouse holding areas.
Johnson notified the jail trust and county commissioners April 8 that he was ending the agreement effective May 10. His notice said the Sheriff’s Office would stop performing the duties covered by the agreement and submit its final bills.
As Oklahoma Politics Today previously reported, 79 detainees missed scheduled court appearances the following day because no agency transported them. Oklahoma County’s presiding administrative judge then ordered the Sheriff’s Office to resume transporting detainees to the county courthouse and Juvenile Justice Center.
The Sheriff’s Office complied, but the jail trust stopped making the monthly payments after the agreement ended.
Johnson asked Hesse to require the trust to resume payments while the lawsuit proceeds. Hesse refused, saying Johnson had voluntarily ended the agreement and had not identified another legal basis requiring the trust to keep paying.
“The Sheriff’s present obligation to transport detainees arises, at a minimum, from the writ of habeas corpus,” Hesse wrote. That court order, he said, did not revive the terminated payment agreement.
Hesse also found that the sheriff had not demonstrated an immediate financial emergency.
According to the order, the sheriff’s chief deputy testified that the Sheriff’s Office had not warned county officials that it was in danger of exhausting its budget, cutting personnel or becoming unable to perform its duties. He also acknowledged that the sheriff could request more money from the County Budget Board, but no request had been made.
Hesse said the transportation expenses could be calculated and recovered later if Johnson ultimately proves that the Sheriff’s Office is entitled to reimbursement.
Outside attorneys not approved
Hesse also denied Johnson’s request to force county commissioners to approve a contract with an outside law firm to pursue the case.
Johnson argued that the district attorney and other county attorneys could not represent him because of conflicts arising from the dispute. But Hesse found no law making approval of the proposed contract an automatic duty for commissioners.
The order notes that the sheriff already employs a general counsel. It also says the attorney general declined a June request to recommend hiring another attorney under a separate state law.
Hesse said state law provides another option when a local district attorney’s office cannot act: The attorney general can appoint a prosecutor from another judicial district.
Main legal question remains
Hesse rejected the jail trust’s request to dismiss Johnson’s lawsuit.
The trust argued that Johnson lacked the authority and legal standing to sue and was asking the court to decide a political dispute. Hesse disagreed, finding that the case directly affects the sheriff’s official duties and the cost of performing them.
“This case does not involve an abstract disagreement over public policy or a request for an advisory opinion,” Hesse wrote.
Johnson wants the court to invalidate provisions of the jail trust’s governing document that exclude inmate transportation, courthouse holding operations and courthouse security from the trust’s responsibilities. He argues that state law transferred those jail-related duties to the public trust operating the detention center.
Attorney General Gentner Drummond reached the opposite conclusion in Attorney General Opinion 2026-8. Drummond said state law generally requires county sheriffs to transport inmates and that the Oklahoma County trust’s governing document specifically left that job with the sheriff.
Hesse did not decide that central question Friday. The case, filed as Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CV-2026-1432, will continue.
