BRB's Public Records Blog

Indiana - Pending Recommendations Regarding Remote Access and Privacy of Electronic Court Records

An Advisory Task Force on Remote Access to and Privacy of Electronic Court Records, created by IN Supreme Court order, recently undertook a study of best practices and policies on Internet access to electronic court records. A 47 page Report of Findings and Recommendations is now available at www.in.gov/judiciary/admin/files/tfrap-report.pdf.  

There are eight specific recommendations in the Report, four of which relate to online access by the public. The public has until December 1st to provide comments. The task force that created the recommendations included judges, attorneys, law professors, politicians, clerks and judicial staff, but no one from the segment of users in the private sector.

 

We asked Mr. Don Johnson, owner of Trace Investigations in Bloomington IN, for his thoughts on this Report and its effect on record access for the public. Mr. Johnson is a founding member of the Indiana Society of Professional Investigators and also a member of the executive council of the Indiana Association of Background Screeners (indianabackgroundscreeners.com), the first state association of its kind.

Per Mr. Johnson:  "By all appearances, these recommendations are going to bring us more complete online records, not less. The clerks are being trained already on scanning orders and judgments into the online portal. In other words, once this is completed a case file on Odyssey (and Doxpop) will now have complete orders and judgments displayed, as opposed to the disposition summaries we get now, which are often incomplete or not even there (just a date and a note an order or judgment was issued). Already local attorneys can scan their filings and send a PDF to the court and it will be entered, or a new file created if it's a civil case (the system is called "E-file")."

The Task Force did postpone consideration of posting records for several case types: juvenile paternity, domestic relations, estate supervised, trust and miscellaneous criminal.  The Report stated the Task Force will consider next year whether to make orders in those cases available online to the public, as well as pleadings and filings in all non-confidential cases. The Report said those decisions will come after initial online access been implemented and assessed.

Massachusetts Modifies (Slightly) Restrictive Policy on Electronic Access to Criminal Court Records

Per a press release issued August 10, 2016,  the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has approved Trial Court Rule XIV, Uniform Rules on Public Access to Court Records, which governs access to court records in the trial courts.     Rule XIV includes a new provisional approval within the section of the rule that governs remote access by attorneys through the Attorney Portal. See Section 5(b).  Also, the Court will revisit this section later this fall. 

This provisional reinstatement of remote access by attorneys is the result of concerns and objections to the recent closure of the Attorney Portal which was also used heavily by the news media.  Per the new rule, licensed attorneys in Massachusetts who have registered with the Massachusetts Trial Court, will gain access to a portal providing remote access to all cases in which they have entered an appearance, and a calendar of scheduled events in such cases, subject to the terms and conditions per Court Rule XIV.  Per the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's Press Release:

"The Justices asked the Chief Justice of the Trial Court to address the concerns that were raised and to make a recommendation no later than the end of October 2016 on whether changes should be made in Section 5(b). Meanwhile, consistent with Rule XIV, the Trial Court is expanding the information that can be viewed remotely through the Public Internet Portal to include searchable criminal docket information, beginning with the Superior Court. The Trial Court plans to make criminal docket information in other court departments available on the Internet over the coming months."  

Regarding criminal case searches by the general public, per Rule 5(a)(2), regarding criminal case searches by the general public:

"...as a matter of policy, the committee has determined that criminal case searches will be limited to case number. Therefore, search by defendant name shall not be permitted on the internet portal for criminal cases."

Also approved are amendments to Rule 1:24 which governs personal identifiers found in court documents.  Per this rule, personal identifying information means a Social Security number, taxpayer identification number, driver's license number, state -issued identification card number, or passport number, a parent's birth surname if identified as such, a financial account number, or a credit or debit card number. The date of birth is not mentioned.

Both of these new rules become effective on November 1, 2016.

Note that access to Massachusetts trial court civil, probate, family, and housing records are already available electronically to the public at https://www.masscourts.org/eservices/home.page.2.

Missouri Criminal Record Search Fee to Increase October 1

Effective October 1, 2016, the fee for a name-based criminal record check processed through the Missouri State Highway Patrol CJIS Division will increase from $12.00 to $13.00 per record.

The state fee for a fingerprint based check will remain the same, however the FBI fee will decrease to $12.00 per applicant and to $10.75 for volunteers.

Note that if ordering a criminal record request electronically, a processing service fee is added when using a credit or debit card. The fee is based on volume, not on a per transaction basis. For example, if the transaction total is under $50.00 the fee is $1.25, if $50.01 to $75.00 then $1.75 is added, if $75.01 to $100.00 then $2.15 is added. Anything over $100.00 incurs a 2.15% surcharge fee.

New Facts About the Currency and Accuracy of Criminal Records at State Criminal Record Repositories

There are three key reasons why the completeness, consistency, and accuracy of state criminal record repositories could be suspect-

1. Timeliness of Receiving Arrest and Disposition Data
2. Timeliness of Entering Arrest and Disposition Data into the Repository
3. Inability to Match Dispositions with Existing Arrest Records

The basis for these concerns is supported by documented facts provided by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). Every two years the DOJ's Bureau of Justice Statistics releases an extensive Survey of State Criminal Record Repositories. The latest survey, released December 2015 and based on statistics complied as of Dec 31, 2014, is a 117-page document with 36 data tables. Below are some eye-catching facts reflected from the current Survey:

• 8 states report 25% or more of all dispositions received could NOT be linked to the arrest/charge information in the state criminal record database. 14 states don't know how many dispositions they have that cannot be linked. (Table 8a)
• 20 states have over 3 million unprocessed or partially processed court dispositions, ranging from 200 in Michigan and North Dakota to over 1 million in Nevada. (Table 14)
• 11 states report at least a 50 day backlog between the time when a felony case is decided and when the record is entered in that state's criminal history database. 18 states do not know how long the delay is. (Table 14)

To view or download a recently posted article with some eye-opening individual state stats from several of the Tables visit the BRB Knowledge Center.

The entire 117-page DOJ survey is available at
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/249799.pdf.

All 77 Counties Now on OSCN (Oklahoma State Courts Network)

With the June addition of Cimarron County, free web access to docket information for civil and criminal docket information is now available for all 77 Oklahoma counties at www.oscn.net/dockets/. Search by name or case number. One may also search traffic tickets. Be sure to check the Court Records Help link for searching help including the wild card characters.

While this site is an excellent choice for pre-screening, the site is not considered to be online onsite equivalent. One issue is the site does not indicate the throughput of records per county. One does not know how far back the records go. Plus according to one nationally known record retrieval firm based in Oklahoma:

"Each district court is responsible for the accuracy of data entry. There continues to be a problem requiring a manual pull of the hard copy file to validate information. The OSCN has blocked access to the public viewing information to certain identifier fields and approx. 80% of scanned documents. This information is only available by using a terminal at a physical court location."

OSCN is rated as a 2 (scale is 1 to 5 with 1 being best) on the Equivalency Matrix for subscribers at CriminalRecordSources.com.

Use caution when using this site for strong due diligence needs.

Washington Increases Civil Case Limit Ceiling for District Courts

In the state of Washington, the Superior Court is the court of general jurisdiction and the District Court is the court of limited jurisdiction.  The District Courts have concurrent jurisdiction with Superior Courts over misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor violations, and civil cases limited under a set figure. Effective July 24, 2015, this civil limit was increased from $75,000 to $100,000.

Therefore any record searches that involve an amount between $75,000 and $100,000 should now be performed at both courts.

At this time, the state judicial web page has not been updated to reflect the new amount, nor have the majority of the county web pages been updated.

For detailed case docket data, the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) provides the Judicial Information System's subscription service called JIS-Link which provides access to all counties and court levels. One may search a single county or statewide for criminal searches; however, searching for civil records is by single county only. Civil cases include small claims, domestic violence, vehicle impounds, name changes, anti-harassment petitions, and lien foreclosures vehicle impounds, and property damages.

The JIS subscription includes access to SCOMIS (the case management system) and ACORDS (appellate courts data).  SCOMIS enables the superior court to record parties and legal instruments filed in superior court cases, to set cases on court calendars, and to enter case judgments and final dispositions. It is important to note that when a SCOMIS case number is found in the JIS application, detail level of the case may need to be viewed within the appropriate SCOMIS court display.

The throughput date for JIS is normally back to 1994 or 1995 and the dates vary from 1979 to 1993 for SCOMIS. The subscription fees include a one-time $100.00 per site, a transaction fee of $.065. There is a $6.00 per month minimum charge. Visit www.courts.wa.gov/jislink or call 360-357-3365.

A limited, free look-up of docket information is at http://dw.courts.wa.gov/. Search by name or case number. The index is of cases filed in the municipal, district, superior, and appellate courts of the state of Washington. The purpose of this site is to point where the official or complete court record is housed. As such, the outcome is not shown, but a link to a summary of the judgment does appear. No identifiers are shown. The search is by Municipal and District cases or by Superior cases or by Appellate cases.

 

Criminal Record Search Fee Increases in MO and MT

Effective March 1, 2015, the fee increased by $1.50 for name-based criminal record background checks obtained from the Montana Department of Justice – Criminal Records and Identification Services Section increased by $1.50. The fee is now $11.50 per individual for a name check or state fingerprint check, and $13.00 for name check online.

Effective March 1, 2015, the Missouri State Highway Patrol, Criminal Justice Information Services Division, implemented a $1.00 fee increase for a name-based criminal record check. The revised fee for a name-based search is now $12.00 for each inquiry by mail or online. The online automated system (MACHS) is also $12.00, but a convenience fee is added.

 

San Luis Obispo Superior Court Cuts Criminal Record Services

With severe cutbacks in the budget and loss of staff, public record services for criminal records from the San Luis Obispo Superior Court is now virtually at a standstill. Employers, schools, landlords, and the general public have been denied most all criminal record requests for nearly a month since the court implemented a new case management system.

This is a "clerk searched" court. The criminal data is not online and the docket index is not available to the general public. There are five factors involved.

1. The court has a public access terminal which displays the basic criminal record index. However several years ago, the Court Executive Officer Susan Matherly moved the terminal to a back room and she will only allow the news media and attorneys access to this "public" terminal. All others, including the biggest users of public records (employers and their representatives) are denied access to the terminal and must submit lists.

2. Although the clerks will process criminal record requests at the window if the request is limited to one or two names or cases, all requests with more than two names have been held in limbo for four weeks. According to PRRN Member Judie Smith (who has over 1,000 name requests outstanding), the manager of the Criminal Department Karen Leibscher and Ms. Matherly both refuse to speak to her, or to other representatives processing work for employers, about the back log and when the requests will be completed.

3. As mentioned, the court recently instituted new case management system. This new system contains only open or current cases.  When the new system was installed, the clerks lost access to case details for historical cases on the record docket: the old system was shut down. For example, the clerks now only have access to the name and case number for closed cases. So in order to find details such as the charge, the disposition, sentencing, VOP, dates, etc., the paper case file must be pulled and viewed.

4. All closed case files are stored offsite, most files are several blocks away. Therefore per state regulations (see www.courts.ca.gov/documents/feetable09.doc), a fee of $15.00 is charged for each case file pulled since it will take more than 10 minutes to obtain.  For a great many requests/instances, this procedure and fee would not be necessary if the court had kept and made available the historical docket data. Because all case files now need to be pulled, the public is faced with a rather drastic fee increase for record searching in this county.

5. In regards to record requests originating from employers and landlords for background checks, these requests made to this court are highly regulated by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and by CA Civil Code 1786. Plus, court data is only accessed and provided because of the expressed written consent of the consumer (who wants to be hired, etc.). The reality is the vast majority of the names are "clear" - meaning the record search shows no conviction. Thus, without the use of the terminal and historical docket index (which can provide the normal same day or 1 day turnaround time), the consumer who wishes to be hired now faces at least a 30 day delay in this county.

The Court has a new Presiding Judge- Dodie Harman. The court's phone number is 805-781-5143. The court's web page is http://slocourts.net.  

Update California Record Access

Governor Brown Backs Down
According to news stories released today (June 20, 2013) by the Los Angeles Times, Governor Jerry Brown reversed his decision to sign a measure that would have allowed local government to opt out of critical provisions of the California Public Records Act.

  

This follows a vote today by the California Assembly which also reversed its position and decided to keep the status quo, for now.

  

There is talk of a possible amendment to insure access to public records remains the same, but the costs of supplying the records would be borne by local government without reimbursement by the state as they are now. So there are still conflicts on the horizon.

  

View the LA Times story here.

California Courts and Record Access

Trailer Bill Killed But New Bill Passed That Alters Public Records Act

There was quite a bit of news and push back about the trailer bill that would have dramatically altered the fee structure for viewing and obtaining court records in California. The bill was killed by the legislature on June 14, 2013.

However, another bill was added to the budget bill which was passed on the 14th. SB71 (or AB76) modifies wording in the California Public Records Act (CPRA)T.

Currently, the CPRA states "...requires state and local agencies to make public records available upon receipt of a request that reasonably describes an identifiable record not otherwise exempt from disclosure, upon the payment of fees to cover costs."  SB71 modifies CPRA so that state and local government are merely "encouraged" to make the public records available as per CPRA. SB71 also makes compliance with certain provisions of CPRA as "optional" rather than required - menaing agencies can opt out. The provisions deal with access public records, including court records.

According to published reports this is a budget issue and the Department of Finance expects agencies who opt out  will save the state tens of millions of dollars. Another in-depth article is available from the Courthouse News Service at www.courthousenews.com/2013/06/18/58616.htm.

View SB71 or AB76 at www.leginfo.ca.gov/index.html. The bill specifically alters Sections 6252 by adding 6252.8 which in turn makes certain parts of the CPRA optional including provisions in 6253.

View the section affected in the CPRA at:

www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=06001-07000&file=6250-6270

The bill is expected to be signed by the Governor on or before June 30th, 2013.