Editor’s note: We first discussed this incident with Sen. Mary Boren on Episode 21 of the Right-of-Way Report. Since then, we obtained additional information about what happened and the statutory authority DPS says justified OHP’s involvement.
During that podcast, Senator Mary Boren joined us to discuss a troubling development along the proposed turnpike corridors: the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority (OTA) was calling upon the Oklahoma Highway Patrol (OHP) to accompany its private survey contractors onto properties where landowners had expressly objected to their entry.
One incident in late June at a 500-acre cattle ranch along the proposed Indian Hills corridor provides an extraordinary example of what that looks like and raises a much bigger question:
When did enforcing OTA’s claimed right to enter private property become a statutory duty of the Oklahoma Highway Patrol?
It Started With an Agreement About Access
In late June, the owner of a 500-acre cattle ranch along the proposed Indian Hills Turnpike corridor received notice that his property would be surveyed on behalf of the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority (OTA).
Todd Humphreys, OTA’s Field Coordinator, communicated with the landowner about how the surveyors would access the property.
The rancher had legitimate biosecurity concerns. He did not want outside trucks or equipment entering areas used by his cattle because of the potential introduction of livestock pests, disease, invasive weeds, and other contaminants.
According to the property owner, Humphreys agreed that the surveyors would enter the property on foot and that trucks and other equipment would not be driven onto the ranch. The rancher understood that the two would work together to protect the cattle operation while allowing the surveying work to occur.
But according to the rancher, that is not what happened.
On Thursday, June 25, he discovered surveyors had entered the property without his knowledge. Trucks had been driven onto the land, and a gate to an area where cattle grazed had been left open.
The rancher believed the access arrangement he had reached with OTA had been violated.
So he withdrew his permission.
The Rancher Said No. Then OHP Arrived.
On Monday, June 29, the property owner called Humphreys and told him that OTA’s contracted surveyors no longer had his permission to enter the property.
According to the property owner, Humphreys responded that Oklahoma Highway Patrol troopers were nearby to facilitate access to the property.
Shortly thereafter, two OHP troopers arrived at the ranch.
They were not investigating a crime.
They were not responding to a traffic accident.
According to the property owner and leaseholder, the troopers told them that the surveyors were permitted to enter the property and that OHP was there to ensure the surveyors were able to do so.
The surveyors proceeded onto the property. The rancher did not physically confront or hinder them.
When the troopers were asked whether they were on duty, they reportedly responded:
“We are here for this assignment.”
And the assignment apparently did not end when the surveyors left.
According to the property owner, OHP remained at the private property through Wednesday, July 1, including periods when the contractors were not there.
The rancher later described the experience as feeling like his property was “under siege.”
That raises a question that has still not been satisfactorily answered:
What statutory duty was OHP performing?
Oklahoma Law Says a Landowner Can Forbid Surveyors From Entering
OTA has been sending certified letters to property owners along proposed turnpike corridors telling them that OTA and its agents have statutory authority to enter private property for surveying and engineering purposes.
But Oklahoma law contains more than one statute addressing entry onto private property.
Under 21 O.S. § 1835(A)(3)(a), registered land surveyors and registered professional engineers engaged in land-surveying services may enter another person’s property, but the statute contains an important limitation.
They may do so:
“unless forbidden to do so, either orally or in writing, by the owner or lawful occupier thereof.”
The Legislature expressly contemplated what happens when a surveyor wants to enter private property and the owner says no.
And in this case, the rancher did exactly that: he expressly told OTA that its contracted surveyors no longer had permission to enter his property.
But OTA relies upon a different statute.
OTA Says the Turnpike Act Gives Its Agents a Separate Right to Enter
OTA relies upon 69 O.S. § 1706(C).
That statute provides that OTA and its authorized agents and employees may enter lands, waters, and premises in Oklahoma to conduct surveys, soundings, drillings, and examinations necessary for the purposes of establishing, locating, relocating, constructing, or maintaining a turnpike.
The statute requires advance notice and provides that qualifying entry under the statute shall not be deemed a trespass.
Importantly, § 1706(C) isn’t limited to OTA employees. It includes OTA’s authorized agents.
OTA therefore has an argument that private survey contractors working on its behalf possess statutory authority to enter property independent of the ordinary surveyor provisions contained in Title 21.
But that leaves us with two statutes that must somehow operate together:
21 O.S. § 1835(A)(3)(a): Surveyors and engineers may enter property for surveying purposes unless the owner or lawful occupier forbids them.
69 O.S. § 1706(C): OTA and its authorized agents may enter property for specified turnpike investigations after satisfying the statutory requirements, and such entry shall not be deemed trespass.
So what happens when the landowner says no?
That is not a hypothetical question anymore.
It happened on this ranch.
And, as far as I have been able to determine, no published Oklahoma appellate decision or Attorney General opinion has squarely resolved whether an owner who expressly forbids entry under § 1835(A)(3)(a) may prevent an OTA-authorized surveyor from nevertheless entering pursuant to § 1706(C).
But even if OTA ultimately wins that statutory argument, another question remains.
And it may be the more important one.
A Right to Enter Is Not Necessarily a Police Power to Compel Entry
For the sake of argument, give OTA its strongest possible interpretation.
Assume that § 1706(C) gives its private survey contractors an independent statutory right to enter the ranch despite the owner’s objection.
Assume further that their entry therefore cannot constitute criminal trespass.
Where does OHP come into the equation?
Nothing we have found in § 1706(C) says:
“The Department of Public Safety shall enforce this right of entry.”
The statute does not expressly authorize OHP to compel a landowner to allow surveyors onto the property.
It does not create a criminal offense called “interfering with an OTA survey.”
It does not say OTA may enlist OHP to enforce its right of survey entry.
And it does not establish a process through which an OHP trooper standing in a rancher’s driveway determines that OTA has satisfied every prerequisite necessary to invoke § 1706(C).
There is an enormous legal distinction between saying:
“The surveyor has legal authority to enter and therefore is not committing trespass.”
and saying:
“The landowner must submit to that entry because armed state troopers are here to enforce it.”
The first proposition does not automatically establish the second.
So what law was OHP enforcing?
DPS Says the Troopers Were Performing Their “Statutory Duties”
During and after the incident, elected officials began asking questions of OTA, the Department of Public Safety, and the Attorney General.
An email was sent to DPS asking that the troopers stand down until the property owner and private surveying contractors could reach a written agreement concerning access to the ranch.
Major Lay of the Department of Public Service responded to that email with…
“The troopers will not be standing down and will continue to perform their statutory duties described by law.”
That makes the obvious next question:
Which statutory duty?
Under 47 O.S. § 2-117, Oklahoma Highway Patrol troopers are state peace officers. Their statutory responsibilities include enforcing Oklahoma’s criminal and traffic laws, making arrests, investigating crimes and collisions, directing traffic, pursuing suspects, and performing other public-safety functions.
OHP can certainly respond to a disturbance on private property. Troopers can keep the peace, prevent violence, respond to threats, and enforce criminal laws.
But that is fundamentally different from using police authority to enforce another state agency’s disputed claim of a civil right to enter private property.
So DPS was asked to explain.
DPS Points to the Trespass Statute
On July 2, Major Lay offered an explanation.
He wrote:
“The statute cited in the first email [21 O.S. Section 1835] expressly states in A(1)(b) that trespass after being forbidden does not apply to federal, state, or local government employees engaged in the performance of their duties.”
There’s an immediate problem with relying exclusively on that provision.
The surveyors weren’t OHP troopers.
They weren’t OTA employees.
They were private contractors performing work for OTA.
But Major Lay also pointed to 69 O.S. § 1706(C), the separate Turnpike Act provision authorizing OTA and its authorized agents to enter property for specified surveying and investigative purposes.
That is OTA’s stronger argument.
So let’s assume for purposes of discussion that the private surveyors qualify as OTA’s authorized agents and 69 O.S. § 1706(C) gives them legal authority to enter.
That still doesn’t answer the OHP question.
Where does 69 O.S. § 1706(C) authorize the Oklahoma Highway Patrol to enforce that right against an objecting property owner?
Where does it authorize troopers to facilitate entry?
What criminal statute is OHP enforcing when a landowner simply says, “I do not consent to these private contractors entering my property”?
So far, DPS has identified statutes supporting OTA’s claimed right of entry.
It has not identified language expressly giving OHP police power to enforce that right.
Those are two different questions.
OTA Budgets Nearly $23 Million for OHP Services
There is another piece of context that matters.
OTA doesn’t technically employ these troopers; they remain Oklahoma Highway Patrol personnel. But the financial relationship is substantial. OTA’s own financial reports show that 95 OHP troopers were assigned to the turnpike system in 2024. Compared with OHP’s reported workforce of 753 members, that is roughly one out of every eight OHP troopers.
And OTA pays for those services. Its 2026 budget allocates $22.9 million to its Highway Patrol Division and expressly characterizes those expenses as contractual.
Rabbit hole detail: The financial relationship goes even further. For 2026, OTA budgeted $22.9 million for OHP services plus $2.1 million for vehicles and equipment. The budget runs about $3 million more than actual costs. In 2025, OTA budgeted $22.1 million for OHP services and another $8.5 million for the OHP Academy. In its investigative audit, however, the State Auditor questioned OTA’s payment of costs beyond its appropriate share. OTA and OHP subsequently reworked their agreement in early 2026.
None of this, by itself, establishes that OHP is acting improperly or that OTA can direct state troopers to enforce its interests. But it makes the questions of who requested these troopers, who authorized this assignment, and what statutory duty they were actually performing even more important.
OHP is a state law-enforcement agency; not OTA’s private security force.
There is another important distinction: OTA describes the OHP services it funds as law-enforcement activities “on the turnpike system.” This ranch isn’t on an existing turnpike. It is private property along a proposed turnpike corridor.
So when an OTA official tells a landowner that OHP troopers are nearby to “facilitate access,” and troopers then arrive and remain on private property while OTA’s private contractors perform surveying work over the landowner’s express objection, another question deserves an answer:
Were these troopers performing an independent OHP law-enforcement function, or were they carrying out an assignment requested by OTA….and, if so, who paid for that assignment?
Keeping the Peace or Enforcing OTA’s Claimed Right of Entry?
This distinction matters far beyond one ranch in Norman.
OHP has every right and every responsibility to keep the peace.
If someone threatens a surveyor, assaults a contractor, damages equipment, or otherwise commits a crime, OHP can enforce Oklahoma law.
But a disagreement over whether a private contractor possesses a statutory right to enter private property is fundamentally different.
A statute giving Person A legal authority to enter property does not necessarily give Person B police authority to force the property owner to cooperate.
And nothing we have found in 69 O.S. § 1706(C) appears to transform a landowner’s verbal objection into a criminal offense.
That leaves a question Oklahoma property owners deserve to have answered:
Was OHP there to keep the peace, or was OHP there to enforce OTA’s claimed right of entry?
Representative Annie Menz Asks the Attorney General to Answer
These questions are no longer being raised only by affected landowners.
Representative Annie Menz has formally requested an Attorney General Opinion pursuant to 74 O.S. § 18b(A)(5) in response to constituent concerns about documented instances in which Oklahoma Highway Patrol personnel have accompanied private survey crews performing work associated with proposed OTA projects.
The request seeks clarification of the statutory authority governing private surveyors’ entry onto property after an owner objects and OHP’s authority to become involved in facilitating that entry.
That opinion is needed.
Because regardless of how the Attorney General ultimately reconciles 21 O.S. § 1835(A)(3)(a) with 69 O.S. § 1706(C), there is a second question that deserves a clear answer:
When a private property owner expressly refuses access to an OTA survey crew, what legal authority, if any, allows the Oklahoma Highway Patrol to compel or facilitate that entry?
Oklahoma landowners should not have to resolve an unsettled question of statutory authority while two armed state troopers are sitting in their driveway.
Keeping the peace is one thing. Using the power and presence of law enforcement to enforce OTA’s disputed claim of entry onto private property is another.
Oklahoma landowners deserve to know where the law draws that line.
