Tulsa Placing Bodily Fluids on a Government Employee Lawyer

Placing Bodily Fluids on a Government Employee Under Oklahoma Law

Oklahoma's placing bodily fluids on a government employee offense is found in 21 O.S. § 650.9. The law applies when a person in the custody of the state, a county, a city, or a contractor for one of those entities intentionally throws, transfers, or otherwise places a listed bodily fluid or waste upon a covered employee.

The listed substances are feces, urine, semen, saliva, and blood. The State must prove the required custody, an intentional act, one of the listed substances, and that the substance was placed upon an employee of the state, county, or city or an employee of a contractor for one of those government entities. The charge is not limited to someone throwing a container of bodily waste. Spitting, smearing, transferring, or another intentional act involving one of the listed substances can fall within the law.

The Act Must Be Intentional

Intent is an important part of this offense. The State must prove an intentional act rather than simply showing that saliva, blood, urine, or another bodily substance came into contact with an employee. That difference can become important during a physical restraint or medical emergency. A person may be bleeding from an injury, coughing, vomiting, struggling to breathe, being forced against the ground, or moving while several officers are attempting to restrain them. The existence of a chaotic situation does not automatically excuse intentional conduct. A person who deliberately spits on a detention officer can satisfy the intent requirement even if the incident happened during a stressful arrest or booking.

Rob examines how the contact occurred rather than assuming either explanation is correct. Video, the person's position, officer movements, injuries, statements made during the incident, and what happened immediately before the contact can help distinguish an intentional act from accidental or involuntary contact.

What Bodily Fluids and Wastes Are Covered?

The law specifically identifies feces, urine, semen, saliva, and blood. A report that uses a general phrase such as “bodily fluid” should still identify what substance the State claims was involved.

The substance may be obvious in some cases, such as an accusation that someone deliberately spat at an officer. Other incidents may involve blood during a struggle, liquid thrown from a cell, or an allegation based on what an employee believed the substance to be. Video, photographs, incident reports, witness accounts, medical records, and the circumstances of the encounter require careful review.

The Accused Person Must Be in Qualifying Custody

Section 650.9 applies to a person who is in the custody of the state, a county, a city, or a contractor for one of those government entities. Many cases arise after an arrest while the person is being transported, booked, held in jail, or moved within a detention facility.

Custody can become a factual issue when the alleged incident happens during a changing situation. The timing of the arrest, who was controlling the person's movement, where the incident happened, and which agency or contractor had custody may all need to be established. A confrontation with a government employee does not automatically fall under this statute simply because the employee works for a public agency. The custody requirement is a separate part of the offense.

Who Is Protected by the Law?

The statute protects employees of the State of Oklahoma, a county, or a city. It also protects employees of contractors working for those governmental entities. Police officers, sheriff's deputies, detention officers, jail employees, and other government workers may fall within the law when the statutory requirements are met. Employees of private companies operating or providing services under a government contract can also be covered.

The statute does not create a general bodily fluids offense for every person employed by any government anywhere. The State must establish that the alleged recipient fits the categories covered by Oklahoma law.

Penalties for Placing Bodily Fluids on a Government Employee

Placing bodily fluids or waste on a government employee under § 650.9 is a Class B6 felony. A conviction carries up to two (2) years in state prison, a fine of up to $1,000, or both. A felony conviction also creates consequences outside the sentence imposed by the court. Firearm rights, employment, professional licensing, housing, immigration status, probation or parole, and future criminal cases can all be affected.

The charge will also create immediate problems for someone who is already on probation, a deferred sentence, parole, or bond in another case. A new felony allegation will become part of a separate revocation, acceleration, or bond proceeding.

How These Charges Commonly Arise

Many bodily fluids cases develop during encounters that were already difficult before the alleged act occurred. The person may be intoxicated, injured, angry, frightened, mentally distressed, physically restrained, or reacting to force being used during an arrest or detention. Common allegations include:

• spitting on a police officer during an arrest or transport;
• spitting on a detention officer during booking;
• throwing urine or bodily waste from a jail cell;
• intentionally smearing blood on an officer or jail employee;
• placing saliva on an employee during a struggle;
• throwing a container containing a bodily substance;
• intentionally transferring bodily fluid while being moved or restrained; or
• placing bodily waste on jail staff during an incident inside a detention facility.

The surrounding circumstances matter because the same physical result can occur in very different ways. Deliberately spitting at an officer presents a different case from blood reaching an officer while the accused is injured and being physically restrained.

Reports, Witnesses, and Other Evidence

These cases are often proved through the testimony of the government employee involved, other witnesses who were present, incident reports, statements made by the accused, and the surrounding circumstances. A recording is not required for the State to prove the charge.

The details of the incident still matter. Reports and testimony should be compared to determine where the accused and employee were positioned, what happened immediately before the alleged act, what substance was involved, whether the conduct appeared deliberate, and what the accused said or did afterward.

When recordings exist, they can provide another source of evidence and may either support or contradict parts of the witnesses' accounts. In many cases, however, the prosecution and defense must evaluate what happened primarily through testimony, reports, physical evidence, and the circumstances surrounding the incident.

Rob reviews all of the available evidence to determine whether there is a legitimate dispute about intent, custody, the substance involved, contact with the employee, or another element of the charge. When the evidence strongly supports the accusation, the defense strategy has to account for that reality rather than depend on the absence of a particular type of evidence.

Evidence in a Placing Bodily Fluids Case

These cases can generate records from several different sources. Rob looks at the evidence created during the arrest, transport, booking, detention, medical treatment, and investigation. Important evidence can include:

• body camera footage;
• jail and booking video;
• patrol car or transport video;
• incident reports;
• photographs;
• medical records when necessary;
• witness statements; and
• statements made by the accused and government employees.

Different reports may describe the same event differently. One officer may believe the accused deliberately spat while another recording or witness gives a different description of the person's movement and position.

Medical evidence can also become important when the incident involves bleeding, vomiting, coughing, a seizure, breathing problems, or another medical event. The medical evidence does not automatically decide intent, but it may help explain how the substance came into contact with another person.

Contact During a Restraint

Restraint situations can make intent difficult to evaluate from a written report alone. Several officers may be holding a person's arms, legs, head, or torso while the person is moving, yelling, bleeding, coughing, or struggling. Contact with bodily fluid during that kind of encounter does not automatically establish that the accused intentionally placed it on an employee. The State still has to prove the intentional act required for the felony.

The opposite is also true. Physical restraint does not give someone the right to intentionally spit on, smear blood on, or throw bodily waste at an officer or detention employee. The sequence of movements can answer the question. Video, officer positions, the accused person's injuries, statements during the incident, and the direction in which the substance was thrown or transferred may help show whether the act was deliberate.

Medical Distress and Involuntary Conduct

A medical problem can affect how an incident should be understood when the alleged bodily fluid contact happened involuntarily. Seizures, vomiting, coughing, bleeding, loss of consciousness, medication reactions, and other conditions may create contact that was not intentionally directed at anyone.

A medical diagnosis does not automatically provide a defense. The records have to connect the condition to the conduct being disputed. Contemporaneous medical records can be especially useful because they document the person's condition close in time to the event. Nursing notes, EMS records, medication records, injury photographs, and observations about consciousness or behavior may provide context that does not appear in a police or detention report.

Mental Health, Intoxication, and Anger

These cases frequently arise when a person is intoxicated, emotionally upset, or experiencing a mental health crisis. Those circumstances do not automatically prevent the State from proving an intentional act.

A person can be angry or intoxicated and still intentionally spit on someone. The important question is what the evidence shows about the specific act rather than whether the person was upset or impaired generally.

A severe medical or mental condition may present a different factual issue when it affects whether the movement was voluntary or purposeful. The condition has to be supported by evidence rather than assumed from the circumstances.

The Substance Must Be Placed Upon the Employee

The State must prove that the covered substance was placed upon the person of the covered employee. An allegation that someone spit toward an officer but missed presents a different issue from an allegation that saliva actually reached the officer. Video and witness accounts can become especially important when the alleged contact is brief or difficult to see. An officer may believe something struck them while another camera angle shows the substance landed elsewhere.

The location of the employee, the accused person's position, distance, barriers, protective equipment, and the direction of the alleged act may all help determine whether the required contact occurred.

Firearm Consequences While the Felony Charge Is Pending

A pending placing bodily fluids on a government employee charge creates firearm consequences before there is a conviction. It makes a person ineligible for an Oklahoma handgun license and affects eligibility to carry under Oklahoma's constitutional carry law.

In order to be eligible to carry a firearm under Oklahoma’s constitutional carry provision, the law requires the person to be legally eligible to possess or purchase firearms under state and federal law. Federal law restricts the acquisition, receipt, shipment, and transportation of firearms or ammunition while a felony charge is pending. That federal prohibition directly impacts Oklahoma’s constitutional carry and means that a person can no longer carry a firearm under Oklahoma law while a felony charge is pending.

A pending felony charge by itself does not create a general federal prohibition against possessing every firearm already owned before the charge was filed. A bond condition, protective order, prior conviction, or another state or federal restriction may separately prohibit possession.

A felony conviction creates additional firearm restrictions. The firearm consequences of any proposed plea should be understood before the case is resolved.

What to Do After a Bodily Fluids Charge

If police, detention officers, or investigators want to question you about the accusation, you should decline to answer questions and ask to speak with a lawyer. Trying to explain a physical encounter while still angry, injured, intoxicated, frightened, or in custody can create statements that become important evidence.

Preserve photographs of injuries, medical records, witness information, and any other evidence connected to the incident. Jail and body camera recordings may be particularly important, and some video systems do not retain footage indefinitely.

Do not contact the employee involved in the accusation to apologize, argue about what happened, or ask for the allegation to be withdrawn. Statements made after the incident will become additional evidence.

Avoid discussing the facts in recorded jail calls or messages sent through jail communication systems. Those communications can be obtained and used in the criminal case.

Frequently Asked Questions About Placing Bodily Fluids on a Government Employee

Is placing bodily fluids on a government employee a felony in Oklahoma?

Yes. Placing bodily fluids or waste on a covered government or contractor employee while in qualifying custody is a Class B6 felony. A conviction carries up to two years in state prison, a fine of up to $1,000, or both. The State still has to prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Can I be charged for spitting on a police officer or jailer?

Yes. Saliva is one of the substances specifically covered by Oklahoma law. The State must prove that the accused was in qualifying custody, intentionally threw, transferred, or placed the saliva, and that it was placed upon a covered employee. The fact that an officer says someone spit does not eliminate the need to prove those elements.

Does the State have to prove I placed bodily fluids on an employee on purpose?

Yes. Intentional conduct is an element of the offense. Accidental contact, involuntary movement, or bodily fluid released because of a medical event presents a different issue from deliberately spitting, throwing, smearing, or transferring the substance onto an employee.

What kinds of bodily fluids are covered?

The statute lists feces, urine, semen, saliva, and blood. The State has to prove that the substance involved was one of those listed substances. A generic description such as “bodily fluid” does not change what the law requires. The evidence still has to establish what substance prosecutors claim was involved.

Do I have to be in jail for this law to apply?

No. The law requires qualifying custody, but that does not mean the person must already be housed in a jail cell. An allegation can arise during arrest, transport, booking, detention, or another situation where the person is in the custody of the state, county, city, or a contractor for one of those entities. Whether qualifying custody existed can be disputed when the timing or authority is unclear.

What if the bodily fluid never touched the employee?

The State must prove that the listed substance was placed upon the person of the covered employee. An intentional act that misses the person presents a different issue under this particular statute. Video, witness statements, distance, barriers, and the physical setting can become important when the parties disagree about whether actual contact occurred.

What if the contact happened while officers were restraining me?

A restraint does not automatically prove or disprove the charge. The issue is whether the accused intentionally placed the bodily fluid or waste upon the employee. Video may show that the contact resulted from bleeding, coughing, vomiting, involuntary movement, or the physical actions of the people involved in the restraint. It may also show a deliberate act despite the restraint.

What if I was drunk or high when it happened?

Being intoxicated does not automatically prevent someone from acting intentionally. The State still has to prove intentional conduct from the circumstances. A separate medical or mental condition may become relevant when the evidence shows that the person's movement or bodily response was involuntary.

Who qualifies as a government employee under this law?

The statute covers employees of the State of Oklahoma, a county, or a city. It also covers employees of contractors for those governmental entities. The State must establish that the alleged recipient falls within one of those categories. The law is not a general felony covering bodily fluid placed on every person employed by any public or private organization.

What happens to my gun rights while the felony charge is pending?

A pending felony charge makes a person ineligible for an Oklahoma handgun license and affects eligibility for constitutional carry. Federal law also restricts acquiring, receiving, shipping, and transporting firearms or ammunition while the qualifying felony charge is pending. Other state or federal laws, bond conditions, protective orders, or prior convictions may separately prohibit possession. A felony conviction creates additional firearm restrictions.