Records Act, 51 O.S. 24A.3 (1998). A court clerk must make such pleadings available for public inspection and copying once the district attorney has filed the pleading with the court clerk, 51 O.S. 24A.5 (1998), unless the pleading has been sealed by a court or is protected by a privilege of confidentiality, such as the confidentiality of a grand jury indictment by 22 O.S. 385, until such time as the order of the court expires or is removed and until the grand jury indictment is made public pursuant to statutory provision. A district attorney may keep information contained within the district attorney's litigation files confidential and so not disclose an information or other pleadings. See 51 O.S. 24A.12 (1991). 2. A court clerk or district attorney has no authority to withhold public records from inspection and copying. Such officers must provide "prompt, reasonable access" to the public pursuant to 51 O.S. 24A.5 (1998). This generally may include only the time required to locate and compile such public records. Id. 3. A district attorney may keep confidential records contained in the litigation files of that office. Police departments are not required to provide public access to records of the police department except as provided in Section 51 O.S. 24A.8 of the Open Records Act or pursuant to court order. Neither a district attorney nor a police department must make available for public inspection and copying a record which includes a list of all charges contained in an information. See 51 O.S. 24A.2 - 51 O.S. 24A.8 and 51 O.S. 24A.12 (1998).

combination of factors. In arriving at these diverse results, courts have recognized the following distinctions: felonies or misdemeanors; the presence or absence of home rule; the presence or absence of express municipal authority; and the presence or absence of clear and express language indicating state preemption. For the reasons hereafter stated, we conclude that municipalities may enact their own penalties for the crime of DWUI. Although some may believe the result anomalous, we find merit in the argument that had the legislature intended to impose mandatory jail sentences on our cities and towns, it would have done so by simple, clear, and express language. Municipalities have express powers to govern themselves and to regulate local affairs. Municipalities have been granted express power to regulate the use of streets by the legislature. Clear and express limitation of the power to regulate the use of streets does not appear in the statutes; nor has the legislature clearly and expressly indicated its desire to gain exclusive jurisdiction over DWUI in W.S. 31-5-233 (1977) or in Senate Enrolled Act No. 32. The provision of a lesser penalty in a municipal ordinance does [*12] not create conflict with a state law on the same subject, provided the crimes are of a similar class. Therefore, municipalities may regulate DWUI by passing ordinances with lesser penalties than provided by Senate Enrolled Act No. 32.

ever been physically incarcerated in the county jail and regardless of the source of the injury. The county commissioners must reimburse him for these costs. A person's indigency has no bearing upon the initial determination of responsibility. If the person is not indigent the sheriff or county may proceed against him in a suit for reimbursement. [*12] If the person is in fact indigent, the sheriff or county has no recourse for recovery against either the county hospital or the state welfare system.