Electronic accessibility in every aspect of modern life has increased ten-fold, but government — and courts in particular — has been slow to follow.
History Lesson
The idea that criminal court proceedings are accessible by the public is a pillar of our justice system, rooted in the First Amendment. This public right to unrestricted access in criminal and civil court proceedings has been interpreted by many states to extend to court documents and court records (as long as not otherwise protected).
Traditionally, public access to court proceedings and records has been limited to those taking place in the courthouse, between the hours of 8:00 am and 4:00 pm. In most every other aspect of our lives, we have 24/7 access to everything from live streaming of our home security systems, to ordering our groceries or dinner from our mobile devices — while traveling at 30,000 feet! Government — and courts in particular — has been slow to follow in the rush to 24/7 electronic accessibility.
Part of the rationale behind the hesitation to jump on the electronic bandwagon, are the ethical issues surrounding unlimited electronic public access. So while the First Amendment provides for public access to information, conversely the Fourteenth Amendment interprets the definition of “liberty” to include a right to privacy. Deciding between these two semmingly contradictory rights becomes a challenge for courts when determining what form of electronic access is appropriate for court documents.
The pros
Unlimited electronic access to publicly available documents:
- Serve a variety of public interests while eliminating the need to travel to the courthouse to research and copy documents.
- Acts both as a deterrent to violating laws and as protection to those whose rights have been violated.
- Tends to instill fairness, transparency, and equality of court proceedings.
- Protects the community and allows the media to report on matters of public interest in a more convenient, timely, and streamlined manner.
The cons
While there are compelling reasons to provide electronic public access, they don’t take into account the potential for it to be used inappropriately. Risks include:
- Increased chance of identity theft, leading to loss of property, finances, and credit
- Exposure to sensitive information that may be harmful to all those involved
- Negative impact on privacy
- Deter public interest lawsuits for fear of overexposure
- Mistakes or abuse of legal process can have far-reaching implications on individuals
What can states do?
Allowing unlimited remote electronic access to court documents could compromise the privacy rights and concerns of individuals and increase the risk of harm to those participating in court proceedings. This issue demands the full attention of the courts nationwide, but not with an “all-or-nothing” approach.
Many states struggle with striking this balance. To mitigate some of the potentially damning effects, states have taken different approaches. The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) has brought attention to the issues on several occasions. In 2002, the NCSC and the State Justice Institute funded the project, “Developing a Model Written Policy Governing Access to Court Records” and more recently the NCSC has published the “Privacy/Public Access to Court Records Resource Guide”.
Some states have redacted confidential information from electronic documents and some have limited what information or categories are available on the internet, only posting some combination of the following:
- Appellate decisions
- Final judgments, orders, and decrees
- Basic information of the litigant or party to the case
- Calendars and case docket lists
Our recommendation
States must agree upon the amount of access they will provide electronically. To tackle this, each state should:
- Consider forming an access committee(s) to determine what guidelines are needed to balance the free access rights of the public with the privacy rights of individuals
- Policy decisions should be publicly posted to the judiciary, legislators, and the public at large; and
- Should be regularly revisited to ensure an appropriate balance is continually achieved
Interested in learning how your state can address this or similar issues? Reach out to BerryDunn's justice and public safety experts and we can discuss the particular issue facing your state and the best practices for approaching it.