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

Makeup of Death Master File Changed

Makeup of Death Master File Changed Effective November 1, 2011, the Social Security Administration (SSA) is no longer including state death records in the SSA's Master Death File (DMF). The law governing this action is found at www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title02/0205.htm. Section 205(r) prohibits the SSA from disclosing state death records it receives, except in limited circumstances. Since it can no longer add these entries, the SSA further decided to remove 4.2 million existing state records from the DMF. This removal represents a little over 4.7% of the entire database. One of the significant pieces of information that the state records data added to the DMF was the last known residence (state, county) of a subject. Please note that the SSA does not have a death record for all persons. The DMF as a verification tool is good, but the absence of a particular person does not guarantee the person is alive.

Vermont Secretary of State Moving Into New Facility

The Vermont Secretary of State is moving to a new facility on June 3rd and 4th. The new address is 128 State Street, Montpelier VT 05609-1104. This move affects the following Divisions: Corporations, UCC, Elections, and the Office of Professional Regulation. Although the agency will remain open on Friday the 3rd, some Divisions may not be reachable by phone. However, the main switchboard number - 802-828-2363 - will be functional and is suggested as a "way in." The goal of the agency is to be fully operational on Monday, June 6th. 
 
Note that the State Archives, which is part of the Secretary of State agency, previously moved to 1078 U.S. Rte. 2, Middlesex, Montpelier, VT 05633-7701. Interestingly, the "town" of Middlesex where this agency is located does not have a Post Office so mail must be addressed to Montpelier, but must include Middlesex in the address.

MA Register of Deeds Tries to Halt Non-Recording of Mortgage Assignments

According to an article in the Salem News, written by Julie Manganis, an entity known as the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems or MERS has bypassed thousands of mortgage records. When a property is sold, financed or refinanced, there must be a recording of the mortgage at the local level. But when these mortgages are sold or bundled and sold (as many as four times), MERS was bypassing the recording fees. Per the article "MERS would keep tabs on the mortgage, essentially creating a private registry and avoiding the fees."

Thus, a number of properties can not be properly tracked or searched in public records at the affected local jurisdictions. Also, home owners may not know who holds their mortgages.

Mr. John O'Brien, the Essex South Register of Deeds in Massachusetts estimates that his office has lost over $22 million in recording fees on over 148,000 recordings taken place since 1998. Mr. O'Brien has requested that the Massachusetts Attorney General take action against MERS. According to ther article "MERS has acknowledged that transfers or assignments of mortgages should have been transferred."

Canton U.S. Bankruptcy Court Relocating

Effective June 1, 2010, the Canton Division of the Northern District of Ohio U.S. Bankruptcy Court is moving to a new physical address. The court will relocate to the Ralph Regula Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse located at 401 McKinley Avenue, S.W., Canton, Ohio, 44702. The phone numbers remain the same.

U.S. Bankrupcty Court's McVCIS Adds Northern Ohio District

The new Multi-Court Voice Case Information System (McVCIS) is officially adding the Northern District of Ohio Bankruptcy Court to its list of users on June 1, 2010. McVCIS is slowly replacing VCIS as the means to obtain bankruptcy case information 24/7 by using a touch-tone telephone. The advantage McVCIS brings is that all participating courts use the same toll-free telephone number - 866-222-8029. With VCIS one must find and use the particular telephone number for that particular Court District. When a court transitions to McVCIS, both the older VCIS and new McVCIS number are supported for a limited time.  

 
The McVCIS system is quite simple to operate. You are given the choice of language then asked to pick a specific court. For example, Massachusetts is #1, California Eastern District is #5, and Colorado #22.

If you wish to have a list of the courts on McVCIS, merely listen to the nessage and jot them down. 
 
If you wish to obtain a list of all the bankrupcty courts' VCIS/McVCIS numbers, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts provides a list of VCIS and McVCIS numbers in use at www.pacer.gov/phone_access.html. However, this list is not current. In fact the list shows only one court (MD) having the McVCIS system in place and it shows a number of telephone numbers that are no longer in use. Personnel at the U.S. Courts indicated that their list is only changed when a bankruptcy court gives them notification, which evidently is not very often. BRB is making every effort to keep an up-to-date list for our PRRS users.

If you wish to obtain a list, we can help you out. Please call us at 800-929-3811.

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.

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.