Meeting colors

OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD

Record of Proceedings

Norman City Council Conference – August 12, 2025: Peeping Tom Ordinance Repeal and Stormwater Infrastructure Discussion

Public Meetings & Live-Streams — Tuesday, August 12, 2025

BodyNorman, Oklahoma

SessionPublic Meetings & Live-Streams

DateTuesday, August 12, 2025

StatusFILED

Video Record

0:00 / 55:17

Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it

0:00

You still hospital.

0:02

They always tell you.

0:07

So the tour case for rampant.

0:10

Yeah.

0:12

I think both sides are right.

0:14

Good.

0:16

I know I know our side for it.

0:23

Okay.

0:25

All right.

0:26

Okay, we'll go ahead and get started.

0:27

It is 5 30.

0:29

Um so welcome to the city council conference for Tuesday, August 12th, 2025.

0:35

We have two items on the agenda.

0:37

First one is the discussion regarding the elimination of section 24308 peeping toms from the code of ordinances of the city of Norman in order to utilize title 21-1171 of the Oklahoma statutes for filing charges.

0:55

We have the city attorney here to uh tell us what this means.

0:59

Thanks, Mayor.

1:00

Um, as the mayor said, this is about repealing the provisions in our municipal code with regard to keeping toms in favor of um filing those charges under his state statute on its face, it may not seem like it's that big of a deal, but for some reasons that we're gonna talk about here in a little bit, just sort of get an idea as to why the police department really is in favor of doing this.

1:25

Um the first issue is really we can talk about is our ordinance regarding peeping toms is in section 24308.

1:34

Um there you see the language of it.

1:36

Um the first sort of two parts are not that controversial.

1:40

Um, regardless of what we did today, one way or the other, we probably do need to delete subsection two.

1:46

And the reason is is subsection two talks about photographic and electronic and video equipment in a clandestine manner.

1:52

Um at the very end of it talks about it being a felony.

1:55

Um that is true, it is a felony under state law, but our municipal court cannot uh handle felony cases.

2:01

Felony cases do have to go to district court.

2:03

Um so even if we were to leave this the way it is, we probably would need to amend it to get rid of that second provision with regard to that being a felony.

2:13

Um and also that same language you're gonna see here in a second, it's also a felony under state law.

2:18

So even if we got rid of this, um option to file those charges under state law.

2:23

Um, if somebody uses photographic or electronic or video equipment still exists with regard to that type of conduct.

2:30

Um, our ordinance continues, it has number three and number four.

2:33

Um, and what you'll find is this language was pretty much taken from the state statute regarding peeping tom.

2:41

Um this is 21 OS section 1171.

2:45

If you were to go through and compare our ordinance to this particular state law provision, it has the same language except for the very last sentence of those, um, talking about the violation being punished by imprisonment in county jail for a term of not more than one year, or by fine not to exceed $5,000 or by such but a fine imprisonment.

3:03

We just adopted this as our language and we took out the last sentence with regard to punishment because punishment in municipal courts not of record is a fine above $750 and or 60 days on jail.

3:14

So that's really the only difference.

3:16

If you'll notice in subsection B, if you take out the last sentence, it still has that language about being guilty of a felony, and I'm thinking about where that came from with regard to our particular ordinance.

3:28

We just took out the last sentence, adopted this as written in the state status, but again, we really can't do felonies and municipal court, so we would need to take that out anyway.

3:37

Um and then um that statute continues on and has a C and a D, which is very similar to our ordinance, just takes out the last sentence and C, and then the definition for private area of person is the same under state law as it is under our ordinance.

3:52

All right, I've had a conversation with our deputy chief about this particular case.

3:58

Um this gentleman named Robert Howard Bruce.

4:03

Um he's charged with 19 felonies and can in connection with serial rapes at the University of Oklahoma.

4:10

Um, as you can see there, um in Norman, those rapes occurred from 1985 to 2005.

4:18

Um 1983.

4:22

So from 1983 to 2005.

4:24

Um we ultimately were able to capture him.

4:29

Um we filed 19 charges against him in Oklahoma.

4:32

He had nine charges in New Mexico.

4:35

There were a number of charges out of Austin for the University of Texas.

4:40

I really can't determine whether or not he actually got convicted.

4:42

I know he got charged, but because he had convictions in other jurisdictions, they may not have college with those convictions.

4:50

And then the interesting part is, and this is what's gonna be significant when you listen to Deputy Chief Jackson.

4:56

He was actually caught in Colorado.

5:00

And the reason he was caught was a police officer saw him peeping in a window.

5:06

He didn't see the officer.

5:07

The officer stopped went on the block and ended up capturing him.

5:12

Arrested him for that offense.

5:15

That conviction would have resulted in his DNA being taken.

5:21

And then you could have compared his DNA evidence to these other unsolved rapes or other unsolved sexual assault incidences.

5:29

And he probably knew that.

5:31

So he attempted to murder the police officer.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting

Stormwater Management████████████████████████████████████36%

Legal Issues█████████████████████████████████33%

Public Safety██████████████████████22%

Engineering And Infrastructure█████████9%

Summary of Proceedings

Norman City Council Conference – August 12, 2025

The Norman City Council met on Tuesday, August 12, 2025, at 5:30 PM for a conference with two agenda items: a discussion on repealing the municipal peeping tom ordinance in favor of state charges, and a discussion regarding stormwater infrastructure issues at Red Canyon Ranch. The meeting included presentations from the City Attorney, Deputy Chief Jackson, and public works staff.

Discussion Items

Item 1 – Repeal of Peeping Tom Ordinance (Section 24308)

The City Attorney explained that repealing the municipal code section would require all peeping tom charges to be filed under Oklahoma state statute (Title 21-1171), which is a court of record. Municipal court (not a court of record) cannot handle felonies and does not report charges to the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation (OSBI), making it difficult to track repeat offenders.
Deputy Chief Jackson detailed the case of Robert Howard Bruce, a serial rapist who committed 19 felonies in Norman from 1983 to 2005, plus additional charges in New Mexico and Texas. Bruce was caught in Colorado after a peeping incident; his prior peeping charges were filed in municipal court and thus not in his OSBI record, allowing him to evade detection for decades. He attempted to murder the police officer who arrested him in Colorado, which led to a conviction and DNA sample that linked him to the other crimes.
Deputy Chief Jackson emphasized that while not all peepers escalate to violent crimes, every serial sexual offender he interviewed had a history of peeping. Filing under state law ensures convictions are recorded and available for future investigations.
The City Attorney noted that in the last five years, Norman had only three peeping tom charges: Cody Plunkett (March 2023, developmental disabilities), Alan Hooper (March 2024, multiple indecent exposure reports, deceased), and an unnamed individual (May 2024, caught taking photos). None of these cases escalated further, but the option to file under state law would still be available.
Council members expressed support for the repeal, with one councilor noting that the city's new courtroom is designed to accommodate a court of record, positioning Norman to eventually become a court of record like Oklahoma City and Tulsa.

Item 2 – Red Canyon Ranch Stormwater Infrastructure

The City Attorney described the detention pond at Red Canyon Ranch (Northeast Norman, near Tecumseh and 12th Avenue NE), owned by the Red Canyon Ranch Property Owners Association (HOA). Two nearby homeowners, the Wilsons (700 Riverview Drive, Woodland Hills Estates) and the Bells, have raised concerns about potential flooding.
Two problems were identified: (1) Approximately 75,000 cubic feet of silt has accumulated in the pond, reducing its capacity. A fence meant to catch debris is now only two feet high (originally four feet). (2) The concrete outfall structure was altered by cutting a V-notch in its side, increasing the discharge rate beyond the original design, without approval from the city.
The City Attorney outlined legal options:
1. Direct the affected homeowners to seek injunctive relief under Title 11 (Oklahoma statutes), which does not require proof of damages.
2. Issue a notice to the HOA/developer under Section 5001.4 of the Engineering Design Criteria (EDC), requiring maintenance within a specified time; if not done, the city could perform the work at the property owner's expense, though collection methods are unclear.
3. Authorize the city attorney to file litigation under Title 11 for EDC violations.
4. Amend Section 5000 of the EDC to include criminal penalties similar to Section 6000 (stormwater), allowing daily fines for non-compliance.
Council members discussed the need for a proactive approach, noting that new developments often face similar maintenance issues. The council favored option 2 (notice) and option 4 (amending the EDC to add penalties). There was agreement that the developer should be given an opportunity to cure the issue before any litigation.
Staff noted that the April and May 2025 record rainfall likely exacerbated the silt problem and that removing vegetation from the pond could help restore capacity. The city is also considering requiring maintenance schedules in HOA documents for future developments.

Key Outcomes

Peeping Tom Ordinance: The council reached consensus to repeal Section 24308 and allow all peeping tom charges to be filed under state statute. The City Attorney will prepare the necessary legislation.
Red Canyon Ranch Stormwater: The council directed staff to proceed with issuing a notice to the developer and HOA under Section 5001.4, and to begin work on amending Section 5000 of the EDC to include penalty provisions. The city attorney was also authorized to explore litigation if compliance is not achieved, but the preferred path is cooperative resolution.
Future policy: The council expressed interest in requiring developers to include maintenance schedules in HOA covenants to ensure long-term sustainability of stormwater infrastructure.

Meeting Transcript

You still hospital. They always tell you. So the tour case for rampant. Yeah. I think both sides are right. Good. I know I know our side for it. Okay. All right. Okay, we'll go ahead and get started. It is 5 30. Um so welcome to the city council conference for Tuesday, August 12th, 2025. We have two items on the agenda. First one is the discussion regarding the elimination of section 24308 peeping toms from the code of ordinances of the city of Norman in order to utilize title 21-1171 of the Oklahoma statutes for filing charges. We have the city attorney here to uh tell us what this means. Thanks, Mayor. Um, as the mayor said, this is about repealing the provisions in our municipal code with regard to keeping toms in favor of um filing those charges under his state statute on its face, it may not seem like it's that big of a deal, but for some reasons that we're gonna talk about here in a little bit, just sort of get an idea as to why the police department really is in favor of doing this. Um the first issue is really we can talk about is our ordinance regarding peeping toms is in section 24308. Um there you see the language of it. Um the first sort of two parts are not that controversial. Um, regardless of what we did today, one way or the other, we probably do need to delete subsection two. And the reason is is subsection two talks about photographic and electronic and video equipment in a clandestine manner. Um at the very end of it talks about it being a felony. Um that is true, it is a felony under state law, but our municipal court cannot uh handle felony cases. Felony cases do have to go to district court. Um so even if we were to leave this the way it is, we probably would need to amend it to get rid of that second provision with regard to that being a felony. Um and also that same language you're gonna see here in a second, it's also a felony under state law. So even if we got rid of this, um option to file those charges under state law. Um, if somebody uses photographic or electronic or video equipment still exists with regard to that type of conduct. Um, our ordinance continues, it has number three and number four. Um, and what you'll find is this language was pretty much taken from the state statute regarding peeping tom. Um this is 21 OS section 1171. If you were to go through and compare our ordinance to this particular state law provision, it has the same language except for the very last sentence of those, um, talking about the violation being punished by imprisonment in county jail for a term of not more than one year, or by fine not to exceed $5,000 or by such but a fine imprisonment. We just adopted this as our language and we took out the last sentence with regard to punishment because punishment in municipal courts not of record is a fine above $750 and or 60 days on jail. So that's really the only difference. If you'll notice in subsection B, if you take out the last sentence, it still has that language about being guilty of a felony, and I'm thinking about where that came from with regard to our particular ordinance. We just took out the last sentence, adopted this as written in the state status, but again, we really can't do felonies and municipal court, so we would need to take that out anyway. Um and then um that statute continues on and has a C and a D, which is very similar to our ordinance, just takes out the last sentence and C, and then the definition for private area of person is the same under state law as it is under our ordinance. All right, I've had a conversation with our deputy chief about this particular case. Um this gentleman named Robert Howard Bruce. Um he's charged with 19 felonies and can in connection with serial rapes at the University of Oklahoma. Um, as you can see there, um in Norman, those rapes occurred from 1985 to 2005. Um 1983. So from 1983 to 2005. Um we ultimately were able to capture him. Um we filed 19 charges against him in Oklahoma. He had nine charges in New Mexico. There were a number of charges out of Austin for the University of Texas. I really can't determine whether or not he actually got convicted. I know he got charged, but because he had convictions in other jurisdictions, they may not have college with those convictions.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI

TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com