BRB's Public Records Blog

Free Copies of 2011 PRRN Membership Directory for Special Distribution

While supplies last, BRB Publications is providing copies of the 2011 PRRN Membership Directory free of charge to interested organizations for distribution at meetings or conventions. Public Record Retriever Network (PRRN) is the organization that set the first Industry Standards for the retrieval of public record documents and whose members abide by a Code of Professional Conduct.
 
The Membership Directory is 240 pages and organized in two sections. The first shows retrievers by state and county, indicating on-site researchers who visit courthouses and recorder's offices. The second section provides a full profile of each member.
 
This offer is only for mass distribution by organizations. If you are interested, please reach Mike Sankey at 800-929-3811 or mike@brbpublications.com.

Arizona Courts - Document Retrieval Fee Inconsistencies at JP Level

A huge inconsistency exists for fees charged by Arizona's limited jurisdiction Justice Courts. In Arizona there is a mandated fee of $24.00 that Justice Courts are required to charge the public when asked to do a name search. But there is no mandated fee when the public asks for a specific case file. However, at least 28 (approx. 1/3) of the Justice Courts charge an additional $24.00 when asked to pull a specific case file.
 
These courts are charging this fee when the specific case number or docket number is given to the clerk and there was no search performed. So, if a search is done first then the public asks to see a file, the charge could be $48.00.

Depending on the court, the $24.00 file charge is based sometimes on a per case basis, sometimes on a per name basis, and sometimes simply at the discretion of the court personnel at the counter.
 
This fee interpretation is not per the guidelines of the Administrative Offices of the Courts (AOC). Also, this charge for pulling document is not a procedure followed by the AZ Superior Courts. Reportedly, the AOC is considering implementation of a statewide fee schedule/regulation that would give specific mandates to these limited jurisdiction courts and thus would supposedly halt this practice.

Circuit and County Court Records at Gilchrist County Florida

This court holds Felony, Misdemeanor, Civil, Eviction, Small Claims, and Probate records. Mail turnaround time is 2-3 days. There is no public access terminal. The search fee is $2.00 per name per year. Copy fee is $1.00 per page. Will fax file documents for $1.00 per page, but available for civil only. Search judgments and liens online at http://records.gilchrist.fl.us/oncoreweb/. Access to County Clerk of Circuit Court records is at https://www2.myfloridacounty.com/ccm/?county=21

Taken from BRB's Public Record Research System

Web Tool Warns of Shortcomings at Certain Online Record Access Sites

The Public Record Retriever Network (PRRN) has long been known as a resource to find a reputable, onsite researcher of public records.  Now, when a county, parish, or city is chosen to find a researcher at www.prrn.us or www.brbpub.com/prrn/search.aspx, a warning will show on the screen if the associated government online system from that jurisdiction provides inadequate or incomplete records. While most government search sites provide a degree of value, too often these government online resources do not provide the same search results as compared to the same search performed onsite. This is because the online search is not displaying the same content as shown when using the facilities at the local courthouse.
 
Some of the typical shortcomings noted for the online search of court records compared to the identical search done in-person include missing cases, incorrect/missing IDs, wrong charge codes, missing dispositions, lack of sentence details, and missing probation updates/violations. The date range of online records online is often compared when searching in-person. These same shortcomings are consistent for recorded documents as well. For example, at some recorder search sites the domestic relations judgments/court papers may not be viewable, older records are missing, identifiers lacking, and records posted online lag weeks behind.
 
As a result, many government online sites provide merely a supplemental search service. Unfortunately, many business entities are using these supplemental online sources as the sole search locale even when a high degree of due diligence is required. And this is in spite of the warnings and disclaimers shown at these sites.
 
A good example is to view is a county from Minnesota. At this time, over 15% of U.S. counties are noted for shortcomings, and the list is growing.

Sources for Finding Intellectual Property

United States Patent and Trademark Office www.uspto.gov/main/patents.htm

This is the ultimate source. If you can spend some time learning to correctly search within the Web site, you will get the best results. Remember, when you are searching for a company, refer to it as assignee. Separately, search the assignee or the town, if small or unique, (skip New York and Los Angeles), and search for the inventor by last name. Other reliable sources include:

www.freepatentsonline.com -- Indexes the full page, but does not give the full results.
www.patentgenius.com -- Excellent search capabilities but, unfortunately, the results are limited.
www.google.com/patents -- Does not index the full page.
 

Note: This tip is from Cynthia Hetherington's book  Business Background Investigations

Civil Judgments in South Dakota - Search Online

Access civil money judgments from 04/19/2004 forward on a statewide system at:

https://apps.sd.gov/applications/judgmentquery/login.aspx

Charges for searches with a credit/debit card are $4.00 per name or date range search and an additional $1.00 charge to access the judgment docket. A subscription service with added features is also available.

New Study on Impact of Past Criminal Record on New Employment Creates More Questions than it Answers

A new study just released by researchers from Carnegie Mellon University has attempted to devise a model to quantify the relevance of a criminal record for employment on the basis that the importance of a past criminal record recedes over time when a person is not re-arrested. The study looks to develop a methodology to measure how much time must pass before an applicant with a criminal record is no greater risk than an applicant without a criminal record. (Blumstein, Nakamura, “Redemption in the Presence of Widespread Criminal Background Checks,” Criminology, Volume 47, Number 2 (2009))

The study, based upon limited data just from the state of New York, found that with time, a person with a criminal record was no greater threat than persons without a criminal record. It suggested that depending upon the offenses included in the study and the age at which the offenses were committed, that after approximately 4½ to 8 years without further arrests, an offender had a minimal risk of re-offending. Of course, the more violent the offense, the longer the time would be required before a person could be considered “redeemed.” Serious crimes such as murder, rape, or child molestation were not part of this particular study, but presumably more serious crimes would have a different result.

Although there is a temptation for the press to take “sound bites” from the findings, it is abundantly clear even from the authors of the study themselves that this is only a beginning. The authors were clear that much more study was needed and that there are substantial issues still to be addressed. The authors’ characterization that the study represents a “significant step forward in an area where so little is known empirically” is well-taken.

The study does not have nearly enough data to reach conclusions from which policy recommendations can be effectively made, has not been reviewed critically by other professionals, and most importantly has a number of drawbacks that can affect its reliability. Many of these limitations were acknowledged by the authors.  There are also unstated assumptions in the study that would certainly skew any results.

For a more in-depth analysis of why this study cannot be the basis to make policy changes, see a more complete analysis by ESR at: http://www.esrcheck.com/Blumstein-and-Nakamura-study-on-redemption-in-Criminology.php

This posting was provided by the ESR Newsletter and Legal Update and Lester Rosen, Atty at law.

 

Minnesota Increases Certain Court Fees

As of July 1st, 2009, a number of fee increases will take place involving the Minnesota Court System. Most of the specified increases affect filings of civil cases, marriage dissolution actions, and the filing of motions or responses. However, there are two fees which will affect record access. The fee for a non-certified copy of any instrument from a civil or criminal proceeding increases from $5.00 to $8.00, and the fee for a certified copy increases from $10.00 to $14.00.

Finding a copy of all the fee increases is tricky. Go to www.leg.state.mn.us/, click on Statutes, Laws and Rules, then click on 2009 Session Laws, and finally on Chapter 83. This will bring up the bill in its entirety. Look for Article 2 and the Amendment to section 357.021, subdivision 2.

Ohio Redaction Law on Court Records to Take Affect Soon

Per Ohio’s Public Access Rules and Public Records Act, as of July 1, 2009 the redaction of certain personal identifiers contained on court documents seen by the public will go into affect. “Personal identifiers” means Social Security Numbers, except for the last four digits; financial account numbers, including but not limited to debit card, charge card, and credit card numbers; employer and employee identification numbers; and a juvenile’s name in an abuse, neglect, or dependency case, except for the juvenile’s initials or a generic abbreviation such as “CV” for “child victim.”
For a copy of the text and a summary of the rules visit www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/Boards/superintendence/PAR/default.asp.

New Utah Law for Employers Using Personal Identifiers

The Utah legislation has enacted H.B. 206. The legislation prohibits employers from requesting a SSN, DOB or DL# until either 1) the time in the hiring process when a criminal background check, credit history, or driving record is going to be run or 2) a conditional offer of employment is made. In general, H.B. 206 affects employers with 15 or more employees. This means that the SSN, DOB or DL should not be indicated on the initial job application form. This is not out of the ordinary, since this procedure is common for employers who work with and are advised by a pre-employment screening agency. However, vendors who provide employment screening on occasion for their employer clients may want to make sure to supply the proper forms to an employer at the appropriate time when a background check is initiated or public records are checked.
An excellent overview of the new law is provided by the Employer’s Council (which covers Idaho, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming) at www.ecutah.org/newsampl.pdf.