State Court Records in the United States

Online Access to State Court Records

From a 2002 CDT Survey:

“The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics (SEARCH), in conjunction with the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), has also examined the issue of privacy and electronic access to court records. In addition to issuing several studies on privacy and the collection and public distribution of court records, SEARCH in conjunction with BJS sponsored the National Task Force on Privacy, Technology and Criminal Justice Information http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/rntfptcj.htm. Composed of state and federal law enforcement officials, academics, privacy advocates and other experts, the task force studied laws and policies regarding criminal records information and produced a report in August 2001. The task force’s report outlined 14 recommendations including:

• the establishment of a body to advise legislatures and the executive and judicial branches on the privacy risks associated with integrated information sharing systems;
• the generation of broad new criminal justice and privacy laws and policies;
• the development and implementation of technology to ensure data quality and security;
• the sealing or elimination of criminal history record information when it no longer serves any public policy or public safety interests;
• the handling of certain juvenile records in the same manner as adult records; and
• the establishment of privacy protections for all integrated information systems prior to their inception.

However, it seems there has been little follow-up and there is no indication of whether its recommendations are being followed by the states.

At the federal level, there have been some efforts to help coordinate state and local efforts. In particular, the Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs (OJP) has issued three excellent guides on justice information systems:

• Public Access Guide for Justice Information Systems
• Privacy Impact Assessment for Justice Information Systems
• Privacy Design Principles for an Integrated Justice System

OJP’s Public Access Guide included a succinct outline of the issues that any government agency must confront in putting records online:

• Public Access: Who is the public? What is publicly accessible information?
• Timing: When does justice information become public? Does it become unpublic?
• Life Cycle: What is the life cycle of the information?
• Value: What is the value of the information?
• Accessibility: What type of public access is available?
• Costs: What are the fiscal issues associated with public access?
• Privacy Impact: What is personally identifiable justice information? What personal privacy interests are at hand?
• Data Quality: How does data quality affect privacy and public access in the information age?

The Guide details many different approaches to answering these difficult questions.

In 1998, OJP formed the Global Advisory Committee (GAC) to identify challenges to the formation of justice information sharing networks as well as to define standard requirements for data sharing.http://it.ojp.gov/global/index.html The GAC includes a working group on Privacy and Data Quality, which focused on issues related to criminal history records, criminal intelligence information, juvenile and civil justice information and privacy issues involving justice sharing information networks. The OJP web site includes information on how to establish and maintain a successful network while addressing competing interests such as privacy. The web site also cites numerous state case studies that can be used by interested parties to establish working networks. Also part of the OJP, the Integrated Justice Information Systems Industry working group is currently working with local and state officials in many states including Nevada, Connecticut, and Colorado to implement and update various case management and sharing networks.

Within the states themselves, several, including Maryland and New York, have established independent committees to determine the best way in which to provide electronic access while preserving privacy. Some states such as New Jersey have actually curtailed their efforts to make records available electronically due to both budgetary constraints and privacy concerns. And while the states’ practices and policies on access to electronic court records may differ, they all grapple with the same issues and concerns regarding privacy, cost, and sensitive information. Thus, coordinated efforts to share best practices and establish some standard guidelines to address these issues will not only ensure the effective and consistent implementation of public access systems, it will also help the states avoid the difficult balancing acts between interests that they must now confront.”