Most court documents are open to the public.
Would posting those records on the Internet open up Pandora’s Box or simply be a more effective manner to shed light on what is already public information?
“Public” is what it is.
The reality, however, is that when you post to the Internet, all of a sudden, a piece of paper goes from sitting in a court house shelf and being available if requested by somebody, to being accessible with a few clicks on the computer from anywhere in the world.
Now that’s public.
The state Supreme Court May 28 heard testimony from individuals and groups weighing in on a proposed rule change to expand access to judicial records by posting them on the Internet.
The proposed changes come after a two-year study by the Supreme Court Special Committee on Public Access to Court Records, chaired by Associate Justice Barry T. Albin. That report concluded access should be increased due to a presumption of openness. Along with that presumption, comes a new “user-friendly” Rule 1:38 enumerating exceptions to that general rule.
But with the considerations that go into making records more accessible to the public on the Internet come concerns with the immediate and worldwide access the Internet provides.
These include guarding against identify theft, protecting domestic violence victims and rehabilitating juvenile offenders, among other things.
The report acknowledges the unique character of the Internet.
“Internet posting results in a hyper-dissemination of court records, raising concerns different from those related to specific requests for court records. Because of privacy concerns, the Judiciary should proceed cautiously with Internet posting after further study,” it states.
With that in mind, some of the specific recommendations include:
• Certain “personal identifiers” will be confidential and litigants should be required to omit them from documents submitted to the court, including Social Security, driver’s license, vehicle plate, insurance policy, financial account and credit card numbers.
• But in collection cases, portions of certain confidential personal identifiers may be included such as the last four digits of financial account numbers, and a debtor’s Social Security number. A financial account may be identified when it is the subject of the litigation.
• While “dates of birth and home addresses should continue to be made available in paper files, at public access terminals in courthouses, and in court records released in bulk,” that same information would be limited on the Internet to display only birth year and the municipality and state rather than the full home address. The exception is matters including civil judgment — to include full home address and date of birth — and Tax Court docket information — a full property address or block and lot designation.
• In cases posted on the Internet, minors should be identified only by their initials.
The recommendations state the judiciary should start the Internet posting of case docket information with civil docket and criminal conviction information. Family and Municipal docket information posting should await an analysis of these first steps.
Many of these topics came up in testimony before the court.
Keith Miller, representing New Jersey Media Lawyers Association, said the organization strongly supports the new rule.
“We believe the new rule is much more in the spirit of OPRA (Open Public Records Act),” Miller told the justices.
He urged the court to consider full posting of criminal as well as civil docket information.
David MacMilllan of New Jersey Legal Services cautioned justices to be wary of the disproportionate impact these rules might have upon the poor.
“One thing we do know: (personal) identifiers are a valuable commodity,” he said.
Low income consumers are often the least able to protect themselves from identify theft, he said.
He cited incidents of identity theft tied to the PACER system in Florida, an Internet court docket posting system; further, that some states have tried Internet posting of court information and reversed course after problems arose, such as in Virginia, Ohio and Florida.
There is no set date for when the rules are expected to be adopted, according to a judiciary spokesperson.
While the openness of court records is integral to our democratic system, there are those who would take advantage of such openness to harm others. We trust the Supreme Court will proceed cautiously. Only with the proper controls in place, will Internet posting of public court information do more good than harm.
To view the entire report see http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/publicaccess/.