CJ-2026-894 - Tionna Collins v. City of Tulsa, Oklahoma

What's This Case About?

Let’s be real: cops aren’t supposed to be drunk on duty. They’re not supposed to be driving drunk on duty. And yet, here we are — in Tulsa, Oklahoma, where a police officer allegedly showed up to his morning shift, got behind the wheel of a patrol car, and plowed into another vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, all before most of us have even finished our first cup of coffee. This isn’t a sketchy conspiracy theory whispered in a dive bar. This is a sworn legal filing. And now, two people who just happened to be stopped at a red light are suing both the officer and the city for $150,000 — half in actual damages, half in punitive damages, because apparently, someone thought it was a good idea to let a tipsy cop loose on Memorial Drive with a badge and a squad car.

Meet Tionna Collins and Demarco Conway — two regular Tulsans who, on the morning of July 3, 2021, were doing exactly what you’re supposed to do: obeying traffic laws. They were stopped at an intersection on South Memorial Drive near 41st Street, minding their own business, probably debating whether to hit up Whataburger or hide from the holiday weekend traffic. Then, out of nowhere, comes Todd Snedegar — a sworn officer with the Tulsa Police Department — who allegedly didn’t stop, didn’t yield, and instead rear-ended their vehicle with enough force to leave both plaintiffs injured. Now, car crashes happen. Mistakes are made. But here’s where it goes from “oops” to “oh hell no”: Snedegar wasn’t just speeding or distracted. According to the petition, he was drunk. Like, legally, chemically, charged-in-court drunk. So drunk, in fact, that he was later slapped with a DUI and even a misdemeanor for carrying a firearm while intoxicated — because sure, why not add some extra flair to your criminal résumé?

And get this — he wasn’t off-duty. He was on the clock. In uniform. Driving a city-owned patrol vehicle. This wasn’t some rogue cop who stole a cruiser for a joyride after a night at the bar. This was a law enforcement officer, operating as part of his official duties, who allegedly showed up to work impaired and then caused a crash serious enough to warrant a lawsuit. The filing claims he was charged in Tulsa County District Court under case number CM-2021-2434, which, if true, means the criminal justice system already acknowledged something went very, very wrong that morning.

So why are they suing not just Snedegar, but the entire City of Tulsa? Because, as it turns out, when a cop crashes a city vehicle while on duty, the city can be on the hook — not just for the officer’s actions, but for how they trained, supervised, and, yes, entrusted him with a powerful vehicle and a position of public trust. The plaintiffs aren’t just saying, “This guy was reckless.” They’re saying, “The city knew or should have known he was a danger.” And here’s the real eyebrow-raiser: the petition claims there was a morning squad meeting before Snedegar took the patrol car out. Which raises a wild question: did nobody notice he was drunk? Did no supervisor smell alcohol, see slurred speech, or question his coordination? Or did they just look the other way?

That’s where the legal claims come in. First up: negligence — the classic “you messed up and hurt people” charge. Snedegar allegedly failed to drive safely, caused a crash, and injured two innocent people. Standard stuff, except for the whole drunk cop twist. Then we get into the city’s potential liability. Negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention — a mouthful, sure, but basically means: “Hey, City of Tulsa, you put this guy in a uniform and gave him a gun and a car. Did you check if he was fit for that responsibility? Did you train him? Did you fire him when red flags popped up?” If Snedegar had a history of issues — and the filing hints at that — then the city might’ve ignored warning signs. And finally, negligent entrustment — a legal term that sounds like something out of a corporate HR manual, but really just means: “You gave a dangerous tool to a dangerous person, and someone got hurt.” You don’t lend your car to your blackout cousin after a bachelor party. The city, allegedly, did something worse.

And then — the kicker — punitive damages. This isn’t about covering medical bills or lost wages. This is about punishment. The plaintiffs are asking for $75,000 in punitive damages — not because it costs that much to heal, but because they want to send a message: “Do not let drunk cops drive patrol cars.” In legal terms, punitive damages are meant for cases where the behavior was so outrageous, so reckless, that the court should slap the defendant’s hand and say, “Never again.” And honestly? It’s hard to argue this doesn’t qualify.

Now, $150,000 might sound like a lot — until you remember we’re talking about two people who suffered “serious bodily injury,” pain, mental anguish, and medical expenses. In personal injury cases, especially those involving long-term effects or surgeries, that number can be a drop in the bucket. But the real value here isn’t the money — it’s the accountability. These plaintiffs aren’t just asking to be made whole. They’re asking the system to admit it failed. That a cop shouldn’t have been on the road. That a city shouldn’t have enabled it.

So what’s the most absurd part? Is it that a police officer got drunk and caused a crash? Sadly, no — that’s happened before. Is it that he was also carrying a firearm while intoxicated? Darkly hilarious, sure, but not unheard of. No, the wildest thing here is the timing. A morning shift. A squad meeting. And somehow, nobody noticed? In a profession that prides itself on discipline, observation, and sobriety — how does a drunk officer slip through? Either the system is broken, or someone looked the other way. And if it’s the latter, then this lawsuit isn’t just about one crash. It’s about a culture that lets cops operate like they’re above the very laws they’re supposed to enforce.

We’re rooting for transparency. For answers. For a system that doesn’t protect its own at the expense of innocent people at red lights. Because if we can’t trust the people sworn to protect us not to drive drunk on duty, what can we trust them to do? And seriously — if you’re going to bring a gun to work while hammered, at least call an Uber. Even your parole officer would be disappointed.

Case Overview

$150,000 Demand Jury Trial Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court in and for Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Donald E. Smolen, II

SMOLEN | LAW, PLLC

Relief Sought

$75,000 Monetary

$75,000 Punitive

Plaintiffs

Tionna Collins individual
Rep: SMOLEN | LAW, PLLC
Demarco Conway individual
Rep: SMOLEN | LAW, PLLC

Defendants

City of Tulsa, Oklahoma government
Todd Snedegar individual

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Negligence	Plaintiffs were involved in a collision with Defendant Snedegar's patrol vehicle, and suffered damages as a result of his reckless and negligent driving.
2	Negligent Hiring, Training, Supervision, and Retention	Plaintiffs claim that the City of Tulsa was negligent in hiring, training, and supervising Defendant Snedegar, which led to the collision and resulting damages.
3	Negligent Entrustment	Plaintiffs claim that the City of Tulsa was negligent in entrusting its patrol vehicle to Defendant Snedegar, who was under the influence of alcohol and a reckless driver.
4	Punitive Damages	Plaintiffs seek punitive damages against all defendants for their willful, wanton, and reckless conduct in causing the collision and resulting damages.

Petition Text

1,296 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR TULSA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA TIONNA COLLINS, an Individual; and DEMARCO CONWAY, an Individual, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF TULSA, OKLAHOMA, a Political sub-division of the State of Oklahoma; TODD SNEDEGAR, an individual, Defendants. PETITION COMES NOW the Plaintiffs, Tionna Collins and Demarco Conway, (hereinafter "Plaintiffs") by and through their attorneys of record, SMOLEN | LAW, PLLC, and for their causes of action against the Defendants, City of Tulsa, Oklahoma, and Todd Snedegar, set forth and state as follows: PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Plaintiffs, Tionna Collins and Demarco Conway, are, and were at all times relevant hereto, residents of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. 2. Defendant City of Tulsa, Oklahoma ("City of Tulsa"), is a municipality located in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, incorporated under the laws of the State of Oklahoma. The City of Tulsa is authorized, pursuant to Oklahoma statutory law and the charter of the City of Tulsa, to establish, maintain, and supervise the operations of the Tulsa Police Department ("TPD"). 3. Upon information and belief to be confirmed in discovery, Defendant Todd Snedegar ("Defendant Snedegar") is a resident of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. At all times relevant herein, Defendant Snedegar was a law enforcement officer with the TPD, acting within the scope of his employment and under color of state law. 4. The acts and omissions that give rise to this cause of action stem from an automobile accident that occurred in Tulsa County, Oklahoma, on or about July 3, 2021. 5. This action is timely brought pursuant to and in compliance with the provisions of the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act ("OGTCA"), 51 O.S. § 151 et. seq. 6. This case was originally filed in the District Court in and for Tulsa County against the Defendants, as CJ-2022-00991, on April 1, 2022. ("Original Action"). 7. Plaintiffs subsequently dismissed the Original Action without prejudice on September 15, 2025. 8. Plaintiffs timely refile this action within one-year of dismissal as prescribed by the savings statute, 12 O.S. § 100. 9. This Court has jurisdiction, and venue is proper in Tulsa County, Oklahoma. STATEMENT OF FACTS 10. Paragraphs 1 through 9 are incorporated herein by reference. 11. On or around the morning of July 3, 2021, Plaintiffs were stopped at an intersection on South Memorial Drive, near 41st Street, in Tulsa, Oklahoma (the "Intersection"). 12. Defendant Snedegar was on duty operating his patrol vehicle when he failed to yield at the Intersection, causing a serious rear-end collision with Plaintiffs. 13. At the time of the collision, Defendant Snedegar was under the influence of alcohol. 14. Defendant Snedegar was charged with a D.U.I. and misdemeanor for possession of a firearm while intoxicated in Tulsa County District Court Case No.: CM-2021-2434. 15. At the time of the collision, Defendant Snedegar was on duty and acting within the scope of his employment with the City of Tulsa. CAUSES OF ACTION I. NEGLIGENCE (As to Both Defendants) 16. Paragraphs 1 through 15 are incorporated herein by reference. 17. Defendant Snedegar, as an employee of the City of Tulsa, owed a duty to Plaintiffs, and all other drivers on the road, to operate the patrol vehicle under his control, in a safe and reasonable manner, using ordinary care to prevent injury to other persons and to keep a lookout consistent with the safety of other vehicles. 18. Defendant Snedegar breached the duties owed to Plaintiffs by operating his patrol vehicle in a reckless and dangerous manner, without due regard for the safety of all persons, including Plaintiffs. 19. The circumstances herein were such that serious injury to innocent motorists, like Plaintiffs, was reasonably likely and foreseeable. 20. The acts and omissions of Defendant Snedegar described herein, were the actual and proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ injuries. 21. By recklessly operating his patrol vehicle with complete disregard for the health and safety of Plaintiffs and all other drivers on the road, Defendant Snedegar breached the duty and standard of care owed to Plaintiffs, as alleged herein. 22. Defendant Snedegar was acting in the course and scope of his employment with the City of Tulsa, at all times relevant hereto. 23. As such, the City of Tulsa is vicariously liable for the negligence of Defendant Snedegar under the legal authority of respondent superior.1 24. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant Snedegar’s actions and conduct, Plaintiffs sustained damages, including but not limited to, serious bodily injury, physical and mental pain and suffering, mental anguish, medical expenses, and other damages in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00). II. NEGLIGENCE HIRING, TRAINING, SUPERVISION, AND RETENTION (As to Defendant City of Tulsa) 25. Paragraphs 1-24 are incorporated herein by reference. 26. Defendant City of Tulsa owed a duty to Plaintiffs and all other drivers on the road to hire, train, and supervise qualified, competent employees and/or agents to safely operate their city-issued patrol vehicles. 27. City of Tulsa and its employees and/or agents breached that duty by wholly failing to protect Plaintiffs and the public during the July 3, 2021, collision. In particular, the City of Tulsa, through its employees and/or agents, allowed Defendant Snedegar to operate the patrol vehicle when the City of Tulsa knew, or should have known, that Defendant Snedegar was under the influence of alcohol, as a morning squad meeting was conducted before Defendant Snedegar operated his patrol vehicle. 28. As a direct and proximate cause of the actions and conduct of Defendant City of Tulsa, Plaintiffs sustained damages, including but not limited to, serious bodily injury, physical 1 See Nail v. City of Henryetta, 1996 OK 12, ¶ 11, 911 P.2d 914, 917 ("Oklahoma law recognizes the applicability of the doctrine of respondeat superior to the Governmental Tort Claims Act"). and mental pain and suffering, mental anguish, medical expenses, and other damages in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00). III. NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT (As to Defendant City of Tulsa) 29. Paragraphs 1-28 are incorporated herein by reference. 30. Defendant City of Tulsa owned the vehicle that Defendant Snedegar was driving at the time of the accident. 31. Upon information and belief to be confirmed through discovery, Defendant City of Tulsa allowed Defendant Snedegar to operate the vehicle when Defendant City of Tulsa knew or should have known, that Defendant Snedegar was a careless, reckless, intoxicated, and incompetent driver. 32. Plaintiffs incurred losses as a result of this careless, reckless, and incompetent behavior. 33. As a direct and proximate cause of the actions and conduct of Defendant City of Tulsa, Plaintiffs sustained damages, including but not limited to, serious bodily injury, physical and mental pain and suffering, mental anguish, medical expenses, and other damages in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00). IV. PUNITIVE DAMAGES (As to All Defendants) 34. Paragraphs 1 through 33 are incorporated herein by reference. 35. The willful, wanton, and reckless conduct of Defendants and utter indifference to the safety, health, and well-being of Plaintiffs entitle Plaintiffs to an award of exemplary damages under Oklahoma law. Furthermore, Defendants willfully, wantonly, and recklessly failed to comply with applicable state safety laws and regulations regarding the operation and use of the patrol vehicle, and such actions or inactions were not only detrimental to Plaintiffs but to the public at large. 36. The Plaintiffs’ injuries were of the type intended to be prevented by these standards and regulations. 37. Defendants knew, or should have known, of the severe adverse consequences of their actions upon Plaintiffs and others. 38. The acts of Defendants were wrongful, culpable, and so egregious that punitive damages in a sum that exceeds Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00) should be awarded against them to set an example to others similarly situated that such conduct will not be tolerated in our community. WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs pray that this Court grant them the relief sought, including but not limited to, actual damages in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), punitive damages in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), costs, attorney fees, and all other relief as the Court deems just and equitable. Respectfully submitted, SMOLEN | LAW, PLLC Donald E. Smolen, II, OBA #19944 611 S. Detroit Ave. Tulsa, OK 74120 P: (918) 777-4LAW (4529) F: (918) 890-4529 [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiffs