Court Records Blog

Historically, state courts have offered public access to court records where the information resides-at the local courthouse. Any person willing to travel to the courthouse could request to view and copy records from the court clerk or document custodian in the available format, whether paper or electronic. However, with the emergence of record scanning, data collection and storage, the public has demanded instant delivery of all court documents, including judicial opinions, orders, pleadings, and images. Many state courts have developed web sites and online subscription services to provide virtual access to their records, previously accessible only by physically visiting the courthouse repositories. Additionally, some private companies have capitalized on the demand for court records by collecting documents from multiple jurisdictions and creating databases that offer expanded state coverage. The advances in technology have radically changed the way that courts collect, archive, and distribute their data, but the corollary expectations of the public to immediate and unrestricted access have compelled many states to reexamine the openness of their court record policies.

While most courts continue to digitize and maintain their records electronically, many are limiting the type of records or contents available for public access. That is because some of those records may disclose private information that can be used to harm an individual. Personal identifying information, such as a party’s full name, birth date, address, social security number, financial or health records may be used to inflict financial harm, damage a reputation, or invade a person’s privacy. Identity theft, the fastest growing crime in the nation according to recent FBI statistics, can be facilitated by the fraudulent use of someone’s personal data found in court records. The availability of batch or bulk data enhances the risk as multiple records can be retrieved remotely. As state legislatures and Congress contemplate stricter privacy guidelines on data collected about individuals and consumers, court administrators should follow these legislative developments closely.
The National Center for State Courts, one of many organizations that monitor judicial trends, has been developing guidelines for online record distribution since the technology emerged. In 2002, the Center provided these recommendations:

The guidelines address court records in both paper and electronic form, and although they are premised on a general rule that access should be the same no matter the format, they recognize that some information in court records may be inappropriate for remote electronic access. Essentially, the guidelines advise each state court to determine the types of court record information that should be restricted from remote electronic access…The commentary to guidelines suggests this information include Social Security numbers, financial identifiers, medical records, and information about minors and third-party witnesses and victims.

Lynn E. Sudbeck, The Justice System Journal, Volume 27, Number 3 (2006)

The personal data identifiers above could certainly be used to steal, damage, or destroy an individual’s financial status, reputation, or right to privacy. There are additional identifiers that could be included by virtue of the case type requested: adoption, probate, and guardianship records, paternity results, and mental health assessments. It is easy to contemplate the danger posed by revealing these data elements, however benign the inquiry or inadvertent the disclosure. What safeguards are in place to prevent sensitive personal information from being divulged in state court records, whether in paper or electronic format?
State courts must seek a balance between protecting privacy rights and public access to court records. The online technology continues to evolve, with enhancements in data searchability and records maintenance. Many jurisdictions are moving toward mandatory electronic filing of case documents, while others continue to operate in a paper-only environment. What options are available to state courts confronted by this dilemma? Here is a summary of some of the solutions proposed by court staff and court-watchers:
1) Return to courthouse access only. Perhaps the least progressive solution, as counter-access only is more labor intensive, less efficient, and more time restrictive. But the requirement that someone physically travel to the courthouse and request information in-person reduces the presumption of fraudulent or malevolent use, and also discourages bulk record requests.
2) Limit the case types or documents available online. Certain types of cases or documents would be restricted to courthouse access. Case types would include family-court proceedings, probate, guardianship, or mental health commitments, paternity and sterilization proceedings. Documents limited to courthouse viewing would include videos, autopsy photos and reports, medical or psychiatric records, accident photos, income tax returns, and expert evaluations in family-court proceedings.

All other case types and documents could be available online, although some court administrators advocate only allowing court indexes, calendars, and registers be accessible remotely.
3) Create levels of access by user type. Limit access to type of user. Create levels of permission to view and copy data dependent on the requester’s professional or qualified interest-parties to the case, attorneys, or court staff. Technology exists to grant access to entire record to these individuals, while restricting personal data fields to other users, but it is cost-prohibitive for many courts.
A related solution would be to allow public access, but to require end users to justify the purpose for requesting the information, and to certify that the data would be used only for that purpose. An online agreement or contract between the courts and users would be a pre-condition for this access.
4) Standardize the personal information to be redacted from a court record, whether accessed remotely or at the courthouse. This may appear to be the most practical solution, but it is not without its objectors. Generally, the type of information to be redacted (without sealing the entire record) would include: Social Security number; full date of birth; address and phone listings; financial account numbers; driver’s license number, and Taxpayer ID. These personal identifiers would be removed not only for parties to the case, but also for witnesses, informants, victims, children, and jurors. Who objects to these restrictions? Most vocally, the news media, but others who may want to create dossiers on individuals or ascertain criminal histories, such as prospective employers, private membership organizations, even potential suitors, and, of course, identity thieves.
A) Who is responsible for redacting the information?

1) Many court administrators believe that the attorneys filing the court documents are responsible for redacting personal information. Some states already require this in their local court rules. There are two benefits to this approach. The first is that it eliminates the possibility that the data becomes part of the public record if removed before filing. The second is that it encourages attorneys to discuss potentially sensitive disclosure issues with their clients. Some jurisdictions have considered proposing sanctions against attorneys who neglect to redact personal information in their document filings.
2) Others maintain that the court clerks should be responsible for redacting personal information upon receipt of a filed document, particularly if a court has established its own standards for restricted data. Alternatively, some courts have considered allowing affected parties to request removal of personal data found in their records, to be corrected by court personnel. However, not all courts have the staff to perform this task, nor the budget to hire additional clerks or purchase redaction software.
3) Technology can offer solutions. There are software programs that can redact data from scanned documents, but for many courts the costs are high and the results not always foolproof. Some programs work with specific file types, and some can only extract preset information fields. XML, a computer language designed to transport and store data, has been deemed the best solution for delineating court data by user.

To find the states that offer court records throughout the U.S., search  CourtReference  and select your state of interest. Keep checking our website for additions to the growing list of online court records!

We last discussed eviction procedures in our post about Landlord Tenant Laws back in April, 2008. Now for a brief update:

As noted in the original post, most eviction cases are heard by courts of general jurisdiction, such as Superior Courts or District Courts. Of course specific courts’ jurisdiction varies from state to state, depending on the structure of each state’s judicial system. In a few states, evictions may be handled by local courts of limited jurisdiction.

As if finding which court handles evictions in a given state weren’t difficult enough, the process of kicking out a tenant isn’t even called “eviction” in some jurisdictions. It’s technically called “dispossessory” in Georgia, but may also be called “eviction” in some courts. It’s technically called a “summary proceeding” in New York, but may also be called “eviction” (or both). It may be called “eviction” or “forcible detainer” in Texas.

In the examples in the following paragraphs, click the state link to see CourtReference’s Self-Help and Legal Research resources for that state; once there, scroll down and look for resources that discuss evictions (or dispossessory, or forcible detainer, or summary proceeding). For selected examples, click the specific court links in each of the following paragraphs.

Evictions in Texas are most often handled by Justice of the Peace Courts. In smaller counties, there may be only one Justice of the Peace serving the entire county, but larger counties have several Justice of the Peace Courts serving various parts of the county. Check out the procedure and terminology in Aransas County Justice of the Peace Court, Denton County Justice of the Peace Precinct 6,  and Hood County Justice Court.

Louisiana also has Justice of the Peace Courts with local jurisdiction, and they also hear many eviction cases – but so do some City Courts. At least the different Louisiana courts use the same terminology: eviction. Good explanations may be found in Lake Charles City Court and Point Coupee Parish Justice of the Peace Courts.

In New York, local City or Justice Courts (also known as Town and Village Courts) hear most eviction cases. Good examples may be found in Binghamton City Court, Chenango Justice Court, and Greece Town Court,

In Georgia, evictions are frequently handled by Magistrate Courts  but may also be heard in State Court; both courts serve an entire county, but have limited jurisdiction compared to Superior Court. An added Georgia twist is that evictions may also be referred to as a “dispo” or “Proceeding Against Tenant Holding Over (PATHO)”. Details are in the links for Bibb County Magistrate Court,  Clayton County Magistrate Court, Cobb County State Court, and others.

CourtReference‘s Court Forms and Other Information resources for each state also have links to eviction forms – and other types of forms, no matter what the proceeding is called, or which court handles it.

Imagine receiving a penalty notice for unpaid toll bridge fees totaling hundreds of dollars. Then imagine disputing those fees in one of two new toll courts in Washington state, only to discover that the likelihood of fine dismissal is practically nil. Since the toll courts opened their doors in May 2012, 75% of drivers who attempted to challenge their fines have lost. Doesn’t that figure imply some fundamental flaw in the toll court system?

In a word, no. The new Washington toll courts have granted their administrative judges very limited discretion in reviewing appeals. The only judicial options available to a toll court judge are to dismiss the charges or require payment at the hearing. The judge can dismiss a toll charge only upon a finding that it was imposed incorrectly. To meet that standard, the registered vehicle owner must prove that the vehicle was sold, stolen, transferred, leased, or rented before the toll incurred, or that the license plate was stolen. Absent those criteria, the vehicle owner will be held liable, regardless of whether that person was driving or received a toll bill. Further, payment of the original toll fee will not satisfy the penalty for the violation, and the judge cannot reduce the total amount owed. And that total amount may be daunting: for each unpaid toll crossing, the fine is $40, plus any additional fees the court might assess.

Let’s return to our above scenario. You are a Washington state resident or visitor who traveled across the state Route 520 bridge since December 2012, or eastbound from Gig Harbor to Tacoma across the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. Whether or not aware of the electronic tolling system in place, each crossing incurred a set fee, depending upon the time of travel and the size of your vehicle. Both locations clearly flag a driver’s attention to the impending toll charge; the Narrows Bridge  still offers a toll booth collection point. Once crossed in travel, both locations can bill from license plate tracking or draw from a prepaid-debit Good to Go account established with the Washington Department of Transportation (WDOT). So how can these fees increase exponentially or catch drivers off guard?

First, any crossing electronically triggers the toll fee. Unless paid online or drawn from an existing Good to Go  prepaid account, a bill will automatically be mailed to the registered owner of the vehicle at the address currently filed with the state Department of Licensing. If the bill is not received in the mail 14 days after the crossing, it is incumbent on the driver and/or vehicle owner to contact WDOT. If payment is not received within 15 days of the crossing, a second bill will be sent, with an added $5 reprocessing fee. Payment can be made online, by phone, by mail, or in person. If payment is not received within 80 days of the date traveled, the toll becomes a violation, and a civil penalty of $40 will be assessed for each unpaid crossing. After receiving notice of a civil penalty, the registered vehicle owner has 20 days to pay, send in a written dispute, or schedule an in person hearing. If you fail to respond or pay, your debt will be assigned to a collections agency and a hold will be placed on your vehicle registration.  Those are seemingly draconian consequences for nonpayment of a toll fine that averages $4 per transaction!

Why such a punitive collection system? According to the transportation experts and WDOT, those penalties are actually considered within  the  “ low to mid-range” spectrum of assessment fees when compared with other jurisdictions across the county.  WDOT also asserts that such fines discourage unpaid crossings as well as contribute to the funding of a new state Route 520 replacement bridge planned. The toll court administrative costs are also offset by the fines and penalties collected; WDOT claims a savings of $6 million annually in reimbursement costs formerly paid to local municipal and traffic courts to process these citations. It’s enough to make you nostalgic for the old traffic court days; there you could offer your best explanation, excuse, or sob story to a hopefully sympathetic judge and evoke a suspended or reduced fine at your hearing. In the new toll courts, the administrative judges cannot legally be swayed by claims of nondelivery, misplacement, or even possible consumption of the mail by the family pet.  Further, even  if you have a prepaid Good to Go account, you can still be assessed civil penalties  if the account was inactive or had insufficient funds at the time of the toll crossing transactions. So that is how those bridge toll fines escalate; a few missed $5 payments can become $500 in penalties if too many citations go unheeded.

 To find information about Washington toll courts and other specialty courts throughout the U.S., search http://www.courtreference.com/ and select your state of interest, then scan the court types available in that jurisdiction.