« Environment - "SCOTUS to Reconsider Wading Into Asian Carp Fight " | Main | Not law but interesting - Australian newspaper allegedly hacks into secret government site »

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Courts - Articles on other states' online court records

"Tennessee lags behind with online court records" is the headline to this March 16, 2010 AP story from the Blount County Tenn. Daily Times. Some quotes:

NASHVILLE — Tennessee lags behind several other states when it comes to posting court case information online, with the vast majority of counties offering a virtual blackout of information.

Nobody tracks how many court systems throughout state allow the public to go online and look up case information, but only three out of 95 counties -- Shelby, Davidson and Hamilton -- appear to offer some form of the service to the public. An official with the state Administrative Office of the Courts said she knew of no other counties that provided the information online.

Of those three counties, only Shelby allows the public the ability to look up civil court case information online for free.

Open records advocates say there’s no excuse for the overwhelming majority of counties in the state to not provide the service to the public.

“If it’s online in one county, then there’s no reason why it shouldn’t be in others,” says Frank Gibson, executive director for the Tennessee Coalition for Open Government.

The sheer volume of user traffic on the Davidson County Criminal Court Clerk’s office Web page suggests that the information is in wide demand. More than a million people logged onto the clerk’s Web site within the last month, said Tommy Bradley, the clerk’s chief administrative officer.

The Web page allows users to find out the entire criminal history on someone arrested in Nashville, dating back to 1980.

“It’s an extremely valuable tool for the public, at no charge,” Bradley says.

It’s difficult to say how Tennessee ranks because of the way the issue is tracked.

“It’s hard to categorize how many states are doing this because there’s so much variance on the level of information that they’ve put out,” said Greg Hurley, an analyst for the National Center for State Courts.

Missouri, New York and Connecticut post everything online, he said. Records from the NCSC Web site show a number of other states doing better than Tennessee, including: Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Tennessee does not have a unified court system, so many court clerks’ offices operate differently in some ways than others, said Laura Click, a spokeswoman for the state Administrative Office of the Courts.

So that was one end of the scale. Now here are two stories from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Patrick Marley reported Jan. 27, 2009 in a story that begins:

Madison — Public access to online court records would be scaled back dramatically under a bill before the state Assembly.

The bill by Rep. Marlin Schneider (D-Wisconsin Rapids) would make court records available online only for those who are convicted of a crime, found liable in a civil case, evicted or issued a restraining order or injunction by the court.

Court records for those who are found not guilty would not be posted online, nor would court records for pending cases. Those would be kept in a separate database available only to court officials, certain government bodies, law enforcement, lawyers, licensed debt collectors and accredited journalists.

The vast majority of state court records are posted online on the Web site known as the Consolidated Court Automation Programs, or CCAP. Those records are also available publicly in county courthouses, and they would remain so under the bill.

"Too many innocent people are being harmed" with online court records, Schneider said Wednesday during a public hearing before the Assembly Committee on State Affairs and Homeland Security.

He called CCAP a "court-created monster" that had ruined innocent people's lives because the public doesn't always differentiate between the guilty and innocent. Innocent people have been denied jobs and housing because they have been falsely charged, Schneider said.

The proposal drew opposition from the Wisconsin Newspaper Association, the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council, the state Department of Justice and others.

"One of the pillars of our legal system is open and complete citizen access to the history of courts through its records," said Peter Fox, executive director of the newspaper association. "(The bill) would have a revisionist court history where only the guilty would be known to the general public."

The second story, also reported by Patrick Marley, is in the March 13, 2010 Journal Sentinel.( I thought about Indiana's closing access to records of handgun permits when reading this story.) Some quotes:
Madison — An effort to restrict access to online court records is foundering in the Legislature, but it may be gaining footing in the state Supreme Court.

In an administrative meeting last month, justices agreed they should study limiting what is posted on the Web site known as the Consolidated Court Automation Programs, or CCAP.

"Whatever problems we have has been incredibly exacerbated by CCAP and the Internet," said Justice David Prosser. "The case for redress is much too compelling to just let it die."

Meanwhile, a bill to prevent the media from broadcasting 911 tapes could get a vote before the Assembly as early as April 13.

The efforts to limit access to records come as media outlets highlight the state's open records laws during Sunshine Week, a national effort by the American Society of News Editors and others to promote the public's right to know.

Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen opposes the bill to limit access to CCAP, saying some may abuse the database but most use it for legitimate purposes.

"I don't want to destroy a good openness tool for a few abusers," he said. "I'm a big proponent of open government, transparency and open meetings. We've got enough mistrust of government without hiding more things."

Limiting access to records can make it difficult to fully grasp what the government is doing. In 2003, the state signed contracts with unions that barred the release of the names of more than 20,000 state employees - keeping from the public the names of employees who had their privileges to drive state vehicles suspended and who earned more than $100,000 a year with overtime.

The Journal Sentinel and The Lakeland Times of Minocqua sued the state in 2005, and the state Supreme Court agreed last year the contracts did not trump the state's open records law. The state had to pay the newspapers $137,525 for legal fees.

Those who want to curtail access to online court records say CCAP leads to employment and housing discrimination. The Wisconsin State Bar has asked the state Supreme Court to make it easier to expunge records, making them inaccessible both online and at courthouses.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on March 17, 2010 03:07 PM
Posted to Courts in general