(See April 28 Posting)
A bill that would have enabled thousands of convicted criminals to tell state licensing boards and prospective employers that they have never been convicted of a crime was vetoed by the Rhode Island Governor. The legislature would need to hold a special session before January to address the veto and rescue the bill.
Nebraska's governor signed into law LB 851 which revises § 9-506(b) effective July, 2008. This revision gives UCC filers the ability to file a statement with only the correct last name of the debtor if the debtor is an individual. The first name and middle initial can be shown on the filing as initials, nicknames, or even as a typo. There is no incentive for accuracy. The intent of the new law is to provide secured parties with greater certainty that errors or omissions on an indvidual's debtor's first and/or middle initial would not make a financing statement seriously misleading.
However, this means that now a searcher using reasonable due diligence must search be using only under the last name (this aspect has not changed) and then review all hits to determine the proper subject of the search. The first names and middle intials will now be harder to use for a match. This will be especially troublesome for searching debtors with common last names. For example according to The UCC Filing Flash (www.ernstpublishing.com), there are over 2,600 unique active records on the Nebraska UCC search web page under the last name Johnson.
Per the UCC Filing Flash "Under the provision as written you may not conduct a § 9-503(a) compliant search by entering any more than the last name. In other other words, a search for 'John Smith' does not meet the criteria for safe harbor any longer.
The bottom line is that industry people are recommending that lenders consider not lending to anyone with a common last name until the Nebraska legislature reverses this deficiency.
For more information, visit the state's legislative site at www.unicam.state.ne.us and search using LB 851.
Several changes have taken place over the past few months.
1) The old dial-up system proving access to the record dockets to Circuit and District courts has been shut down. All users have migrated to the web interface at http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/inquiry/inquiry-index.jsp
2) Previously, data was not provided on the web interface for case information from Montgomery and Prince George's Counties Circuit courts. Now the system provides information from these two counities, but there is a one-day delay. Circuit courts are the general jurisidiction courts in Maryland.
3) To better manage the civil case load, the Maryland Judiciary raised the civil case limit at the lower, limited jurisdicational District Courts from $25,000 to $30,000. However, not all courts are necessarily following this pattern. A search of both courts is in order when looking for records involving that dollar amount range.
Update to the March 12th posting on this site.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court rescinded the rule closing selected online court records and redacting information from court files. A statement issued by the the court on 3/25/08 indicated the ruling was withdrawn to provide further study and consideration.
A recent decision by the OK Supreme Court requires filers to redact personal data identifiers including SSN's, taxpayer ID's, names of minors, dates of birth, financial account information and home addresses from all pleadings or other documents filed with the court. Filers also have the option to redact other information including personal identifying numbers, medical records, employment history and financial information. Internet access will be immediately limited to court dockets only. The effective date of these rules is June 10, 2008. View court opinion.
Vermont vital records can be ordered online at https://secure.vermont.gov/BGS/vitalrecords/. The records are sold to the public for a $10 fee (credit cards accepted) and mailed within 5 -7 business days. Available records include birth, death, marriage, divorce, civil union, and civil union dissolution certificates.
Connecticut’s judicial system has placed all felony and misdemeanor convictions online. Juvenile records are not displayed. Records go back to January 1, 2000. Misdemeanors are removed after 5 years. Users can search by last name and first initial. You can also enter a birthdate or range and select a specific court location. Those performing due diligence should take note of the disclaimer:
This Criminal History Record Information May Change Daily Due To Erasures, Corrections, Pardons, And Other Modifications To Individual Criminal History Record Information. The Judicial Branch Cannot Guarantee The Accuracy Of The Information Except With Respect To This Date.
The site is located at www.jud2.ct.gov/crdockets/SearchByDefDisp.aspx
A firm date has not been, but Registered Users at Montana's https://app.mt.gov/dojdrs/ will see an increase for a driving record from $7.00 to $7.25 right after the first of the year.
Minnesota recently unveiled the state's new Trial Court Public Access (MPA) at http://pa.courts.state.mn.us/default.aspx. Search statewide or by county. Records available include criminal, civil, family, and probate. Searches can be performed using a case number or name.
But there are a number of caveats; foremost, certain publicly-accessible case records cannot be viewed online. For example, electronic copies of public documents filed by parties also cannot be viewed online at this time. Also, name searches for criminal case records will not return information on cases without dispositions. Two counties (Ramsey and Dakota) are not yet online. The federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) also prevents the state from displaying harassment and domestic abuse case records online.
Interestingly, the public access terminals found at the courthouses do not use this system. For example, party street address and name searches on criminal pre-conviction case records are publicly accessible and available at the courthouse, but not online. The harassment and domestice abuse case records are available at the courthouse. Comment fields for all case types are not available online but are available at the courthouse. Online users are not notified when such public data is restricted from online viewing.
This online system is supplemental at best. In fact, the web page states MPA REMOTE SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR BACKGROUND CHECKS. The bottom line is the public access terminals found at courthouses are still the most accurate searching locations. In Judicial Districts (arranged by number and often covering several counties) many court's public access terminals contain court records for that entire district.
An item has slipped under the radar which could greatly affect access of motor vehicle records from Washington DC. On November 16th, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in Vol.54 - NO.46 of the District of Columbia Register was published that, among other items, raises the annual fee of an entity purchasing electronic driving records from $100 per year to $25,000 per year. Also proposed is an increase in the annual fee for periodic receipt of electronic files containing vehicle registration information from $1,200 a year to $36,000 per year. The way the current law reads - the proposed rule changes read - is there is no distinction on the type of entity that is receiving the driving records electronically. The fee applies equally to insurance companies, trucking companies, MVR vendors, etc., as long as that entity is the account obtaining records directly.
The public has 30 days to comment on the proposed new rules, starting November 16th.
The language in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking states that a primary reason for this increase is that the Director wants to raise funds to safeguard the personal records of DC drivers because of the recent data security breach in California, and legal costs with data collection companies. However, instead of raising the fees to these same data collection companies and data brokers that apply to purchase the data in bulk, the Director wants to raise the fees for a distinctly different group - a group that has nothing to do with the data security breach or with data collection. Interestingly, the entities affected hold written permission of drivers to access the drivers' data so drivers can obtain a job or get insurance, and they already have the very personal information on file that the Director is trying to protect. There is a huge, distinctive difference between these two completely different types of requesters.
One major, evolutionary reason that online service is provided by state jurisdictions to the insurance industry is so that DMV personnel do not have to provide records on a manual basis - meaning by mail and over the counter. Common practice for states charging an annual fee for electronic driving record access is between $75 and $95. Raising the DC fee from $100 to $25,000 will most likely lead to an increase of requests for records processed manually by DC. The proposed new rules do not, I believe, contain provisions for the Director to add additional employees to handle increased requests by mail or in person.
To view the current rules as they are written, visit http://www.dmv.dc.gov/info/title-18/chap08_pdf.shtm
The person to contact to obtain a copy of the proposed rulemaking is the same person to whom to submit comments. Contact Mr. Glenn Durbin, Assistant Attorney General, DC Department of Motor Vehicles, 95 M Street, SW, Ste 300, Washington DC, 20024. The telephone number is 202-729-7012, fax is 202-729-7152, email is glenn.durbin@dc.gov
When faced with a budget crunch, there have been workable solutions that other jurisdictions have put into place. I sincerely hope some additional research is performed and common sense prevails.
