BRB's Public Records Blog

South Dakota Raises Fee for Court Record Searches

On March 20, 2012, the South Dakota Governor signed HB 1058. The new law will increase search fees charged to view or obtain Circuit Court records. The current $15.00 fee will increase to $20.00 as of Jan. 1, 2013, but the fee would return to $15.00 effective July 1, 2017. (HB1058 was actually a compromise - the original bill had an increase of $10.00.) The additional funds will be used to offset last year's budget cuts and to support an upgrade of the court's computerized case management system.

The $20.00 fee is for a search of statewide criminal and civil records, and also is applicable for local onsite requests to check individual court case files. View the bill at http://legis.state.sd.us/index.aspx.

Reminder - PACER Goes to $.10 a Page on April 1st

The Federal Court System provides public access to court case information via the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system. Effective April 1, 2012, the fee to electronically access information will increase from $.08 to $.10 per page.

However, it should be noted that PACER users who do not accrue charges of more than $15 in a quarterly billing cycle would not be charged a fee. The pre-April 2012 exemption is $10 per quarter. PACER documentation indicates that this expanded exemption means 75 to 80 percent of all users will still pay no fees. See www.pacer.gov/.

San Luis Obispo County, CA

Per PRRN Member Judith Smith, the Executive Director of the San Luis Obispo Superior Court - Ms. Susan Matherly - has simply had enough. Ms. Matherly has had it with all the public record search firms hired by employers to check criminal records of local residents that apply for jobs. On March 14th she announced at a local Bar Association luncheon that she was shutting down the public access terminal to background screening firms. And on Monday March 19th she did it. The IT staff removed the public access computer and put it in a locked room to be accessible only by attorneys and their investigators.

To better understand Ms. Matherly's logic, consider the following summarized statements she also made at the March 14th luncheon, as reported by Ms. Smith:
Public access information was never intended for background screeners. Background screening companies just make people not get hired. Employers shouldn't be using background screening companies, but rather should be using the DOJ/LiveScan [the FBI]. There are penal codes stating that the type of research that background screening researchers are doing is illegal. [But she refused to mention what these laws are.] Background screening companies and researchers are not trained to know what they are doing. There is no identifying information in the computer to know if a researcher has indentified the correct person. [Note: The terminal does display a full name and the DOB.]

At present according to Judith Smith, Ms Matherly has instructed the Superior Court Clerks to do the following:
Only attorneys and their investigators now have access to the locked room where the public access computer with access to the public records now resides.
Clerks are not allowed to provide dockets to anyone except to the defendant or their attorney of record.
Record searchers may only provide clerks with 10 names a day.
Clerks may only provide very limited information (for free) if there is only one recent case. Only data provided are the case #, violation and disposition date, the charge and disposition for convictions. If a charge was dismissed the clerk will not inform the requester. Also, no information is provided on sentencing or parole violations. However, the researcher can obtain this information for a $15.00 fee.
If a subject name has more than one case, the clerks will only provide the case numbers. The researchers then must order each file to review for a $15.00 fee per case.

For those interested:

Judith Smith can be reached at Judie@jhsmithconsulting.com.

The presiding judge and Ms. Matherly's supervisor is Judge Barry LaBarbera.

Ms. Matherly can be reached at:

Ms. Susan Matherly
Executive Director, Superior Court
1050 Monterey Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93408
susan.matherly@slo.courts.ca.gov
805-781-5421

News From Courts

Hawaii
Hawaii recently upgraded the electronic access to the state's Circuit Court records though Ho'ohiki. Users of the system had been experiencing excessive waits and delays. The Judiciairy added additional slots which should alleviate much of the wait time. The long term plan is to replace Ho'ohiki with a new platform for Circuit Court information on the state's Judiciary Information Management System.

However, be aware there are gaps in time periods Ho'ohiki, depending on the District. Also, these records are not considered "official" - there is a strong disclaimer at the site. It is advised to use caution if this site is the only source for FCRA compliant searches.

See www.courts.state.hi.us/legal_references/records/search_court_records.html
 
Nebraska
The ability to electronically file probate case in any of the 93 counties has been added to the Nebraska Judicial eFiling system. This includes cases involving estates, guardianships, conservatorships, and trusts. Civil, criminal and juvenile case types are already part of eFiling. 

See www.supremecourt.ne.gov/court-information-tech/e-filing.shtml

Oklahoma
The Oklahoma Supreme Court has modified an earlier position and has determined that the filing of court documents should include the full date of birth and the full DOB should not be excluded from public documents. An earlier decision would have limited the disclosure of this identifier.

The Judiciary is in the process of developing a single statewide court database system. Eventually the public will have access to case information from all of the 77 county courts on one platform. Currently there are two systems that together provide case information online from 76 counties. At present, records from Cimarron County are not on either system.

For more information on the systems visit www.oscn.net.

Wisconsin

The Wisconsin Circuit Court Access system (WCCA) is a very popular public online access mode for case and docket information. One of the drawbacks to the system is the lack of records from Portage county.  Recently the WCAA announced the addition of Portage court records dating back 25 years. However, users should be aware this case information will not show up on the WCCA for several more months. The data is being slowly added while being checked for completeness and accuracy. A statewide WI check should still include an onsite search in Portage for the next several months.

WCAA is accessible at  http://wcca.wicourts.gov/index.xsl.
 
 

Battle Over NC Court Criminal Record Access Continues

As previously reported, the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts (NCAOC) ceased providing the licensees of the ACIS Daily Criminal Extract with the criminal case details. Court details now must be accessed in person or by using an old, antiquated technology system called The Green Screen. This move altered the way tens of thousands of criminal records are accessed in North Carolina.
 
In response to the NCAOC's mandate, several vendors filed suit in the Wake County, NC. The case is 11 CVS 1548 COURT VENTURES INC. and HIREASE INC (plaintiffs)   v. NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRTAIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS and JOHN W. SMITH, II (in his capacity as Director of the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts) (defendants).
 
An point of contention in this court case has led to the introduction of legislation in North Carolina - Who is the custodian of these court records? Evidently the county clerks are saying that the AOC is the custodian of the records, and the AOC is saying the county clerks are the custodians. Once it is determined who is the custodian, then the case will likely focus on the contractual obligation to provide public records.
Below are further details.
 
Referencing CVS 1548, in section 61 of the NCAOC's First Defense Response, the defendants deny that they are the custodians of any public information in the ACIS database, although they admit they maintain the database. The defendants allege that the 100 clerks of courts are the custodians of the records. In Section 5 the AOC denies that "this is a public record action in that the relationship between plaintiffs and AOC are governed by contracts entered into pursuant to N.C Gen Stat. § 7A-109."
 
On April 6, House Bill 859l regarding AOC/Custody and Availability of Court Records was filed in the NC State legislature. The bill is meant to "...clarify that the Administrative Office of the Courts is a custodian of court records...those court records are a public record..."  The bill re-writes portions of section 7A-109.
 
The phone number for the Wake County Clerk of Court is 919-792-4000. The current version of the House Bill is viewable at:
www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2011/Bills/House/PDF/H859v1.pdf.  

New Hamphsire Court Reorganization and the New Circuit Courts

A bill working its way through the New Hampshire Legislature that will establish a new Circuit Court system to consolidate the existing 32 District Courts, 10 Probate Courts, and 25 Family Courts.  House Bill 609 was passed by the House will hit the Senate Floor on April 20th. If approved, it will be sent to the Finance Committee and if the Senate version of the bill has no changes then it will be forwarded to the Governor for signature. Most insider in NH expect no changes.
To see the bill, visit www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/quick_search.html

The purpose of the reorganization is to save management money and to operate more efficiently. Overall there are now 42 clerks and 10 registrars of probate positions that would be converted to 18 clerks, 3 deputy clerks, and 23 court assistants. 8 full-time positions would be eliminated.  Under the new rules, each county will have a Circuit Court with three Divisions: District, Family, and Probate. All current District Court locations will remain open. In most counties, the probate case records will be maintained in the District Court located at the county seat. 

The District Division will continue to handle misdemeanor, traffic, civil actions under $25,000, small claims, and landlord-tenant cases. The Probate Division will still have jurisdiction over wills, trusts and estates, guardianships and involuntary commitment proceedings, adoptions, name changes and partition of real estate. Family Division cases include divorce/parenting action, child support, domestic violence petitions, guardianship of minors, termination of parental rights, abuse/neglect cases, children in need of services, juvenile delinquency, and some adoptions.

At present, District Courts are organized by town and not by county. Each District Court maintains its own database of records and most case records have not been placed into electronic format; they are in paper format. The new law does not provide for a centralized Circuit Court repository for the existing or future District records. The assumption is that a search of District level records in a county will still require a search at each of the District Divisions in that county, unless the Circuit Clerk decides to consolidate the records. Also keep in mind there can be District Courts that cover portions of two counties. For example the Franklin District Court jurisdiction includes towns from two counties - Merrimack and Belknap.

In NH the Superior Court is the court of general jurisdiction and handles criminal, domestic relations, civil cases over $25,000, and provides the only forum in this state for trial by jury. Also in NH, if a Small Claim case is over $1500, the defendant may request a jury trial. If such a request is filed, the case is transferred to the county Superior Court.

Montana Courts Increasing Civil Limits Designations

Per the governor's signature on SB 238, the state of Montana is modifying the courts' limits for Civil Actions and for Small Claims. Effective July 1, 2011, the District Courts, which are the general jurisdiction courts, will only try civil matters exceeding $12,000. The previous limit was $7,000. The courts of limited jurisdiction, which are Justice Courts, City Courts and Municipal Courts, will have the maximim civil amount raised from $7,000 to $12,000. The Small Claims maximum limit will increase as well, from $3,000 to $7,000.

The enacted legislation decreed that in certian case types (including recovery of money and damages involving personal property) the new limits are exclusive of attorney fees. The new law also increases the City Court jurisdiction on certain matters from $5,000 to $9,500. 
 
To view a copy of the bill, visit http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2011/billhtml/SB0238.htm
 

Changes on Hold to Electronic Access of NC Criminal Court Records

Pending a court ruling in Wake County, NC, the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts (NCAOC) voluntarily postponed their planned March 1 mandate which would have altered the way millions of criminal records are accessed in North Carolina.  The docket number is 11cv001548.

The reason for the ruling is that several consumer reporting agencies filed a restraining order against the NCAOC to stop their mandate. A hearing was held late last week on a preliminary injunction to halt the NCAOC from modifying the manner in which criminal record data is released. The judge's decision on the motion is expected within the week. The docket number is 11cv001548.

As previously reported in this newsletter, if the NCAOC changes take place, licensees to the ACIS Daily Criminal Extract would no longer have access to criminal court case details in these daily ACIS extract feeds. Licensees would be forced to use an old technology system - known as the Green Screen - that would greatly increase the turnaround time and fees.

The Director of the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts, Judge John W. Smith can be reached at John.W.Smith@aoc.nccourts.org. For more information on the Green Screen, contact the NCAOC Remote Public Access group at 919-890-2220 or rpa@aoc.nccourts.org.

A list of licensees who receive the daily bulk fee is found at:

www.nccourts.org/Citizens/GoToCourt/Documents/cbccompanies.pdf

Latest on Electronic Access of NC Criminal Court Records

A hearing was held late this week (March 4) on a preliminary injunction to halt the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts' (NCAOC) from the modifying the manner in which criminal record data is released. Last week several consumer reporting agencies filed a restraining order against the NCAOC to stop their mandate. The judge’s decision on the motion is expected within the week.

At present, millions of North Carolina criminal record searches are processed annually by licensees of the ACIS Daily Criminal Extract. Licensees receive a daily bulk feed provided by the NCAOC.  The data includes full information on criminal court cases. Effective March 1, 2011, NCAOC was to terminate the inclusion of criminal court case details from these daily ACIS extract feeds. The NCAOC plans to replace the current extract with a stripped down version dubbed the "Demographic Extract" which will include name, address, DOB and the last four digits of the SSN.  However if the NCAOC prevails, to retrieve specific case details including  charge, level of offense, method of disposition, plea, and sentencing, all licensees (or vendors or end users) would incur an added manual step and incur additional fees to access the Remote Public Access system.

The Green Screen
The Remote Public Access system, commonly referred to as the "Green Screen" is a Telnet based system that connects users directly with the AOC.  Users incur a charge of $.21 per screen or page. There are numerous screens associated with a search, For example there is an initial entry screen, a log-in screen, a log-in confirmation screen, and the case details are shown on multiple screens. Each movement up or down to a new screen incurs the $.21 charge. Users often find that a record search can involve using a dozen or more screens, and of course the associated time.  At present, most high volume users and vendors prefer to access records on an instant basis from one of the licensees. Effective Match 1, these record requesters will be forced to either use the Green Screen or to pay someone to look-up the records on the Green Screen.

According to former NC Magistrate Judge Dean Carras, "The current Green Screen system is operating with the same technology and platform it was using in the mid 1990's. The Green Screen is very antiquated and inefficient compared to the other 29 states where the office of court administration offers online access to court record information. The Remote Public Access System is not and was never designed for use as a screening or investigative tool." 
According to the NCAOC, the reason for the termination of the case information in the data extract feed is to stop the reporting of inaccurate information and the reporting of expunged cases. Licensees and record requesters counter that many expunged cases are already being shown on the Green Screen and that adding a manual process step to criminal record searches will increase and not lesson the chance of inaccurate data be reported.
 
Record Searches if NCAOC Prevails
The licensees who receive the bulk criminal record data will maintain their historical information to provide to vendors, employers, attorneys and other users. However search details on all new, open cases, or amended cases will now need to be searched on the Green System. This means that users will see a fee increase for the added costs and added time needed to access and read records. Also, time delays are expected, especially at the outset with the learning curve users will face with navigating the Green Screen System.
 
Another concern is the additional bandwidth that will be needed to accommodate the significant increase Green Screen usage. Licensees are fearful that the system will bog down or come to a halt as millions of record searches will be subject to a non-automated access mode.
 
If you have comments, questions or concerns, you can contact the Director of the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts, Judge John W. Smith at John.W.Smith@aoc.nccourts.org. For more information on the Green Screen, contact the NCAOC Remote Public Access group at 919-890-2220 or rpa@aoc.nccourts.org. 
 
A list of licensees who receive the daily bulk fee is found at:
www.nccourts.org/Citizens/GoToCourt/Documents/cbccompanies.pdf

Missouri Highway Patrol Opens New Criminal Record Access Site

The Missouri State Highway Patrol, Criminal Record & Identification Division, recently instituted a new program for the online access and retrieval of criminal records. The data includes felonies, misdemeanors, and selected municipal ordinance violations. The site is www.machs.mshp.dps.mo.gov. A user must create an account and use of a credit card is required. There is a $10.00 fee for each search plus a 'convenience fee' for each transaction. This convenience fee is $1.00 for 1 to 3 records, but when more than 3 records are ordered a sliding scale is used which varies from 3% to 2.6%. Once an account is created, users may submit the name, date of birth, and/or social security number of a person.

Requesters receive all Missouri open record criminal history information related to the individual - meaning convictions, arrests within 30 days, pending charges and suspended imposition of sentences during probation. All completed records are emailed in a PDF format to the user's account, usually within seconds unless further research is need to determine a disposition. For additional information, visit the site or call the Highway Patrol at 573-526-6153.