Court limits access to public records
Court limits access of state public records

Comments Comment on this article10

By John Greiner
Published: March 12, 2008

Oklahomans' access to court records on the Internet will be limited by rules adopted Tuesday by the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

Advertisement

The court said individual pleadings and other recorded documents filed in state court actions shall not be publicly displayed on the Internet. People wanting to see this information can go to the courthouse and view it.

The court said it issued the rules in order to balance the rights of privacy of individuals who use Oklahoma's court system and public access to court documents. The rules affect operations of the state's district courts.

These rules regarding privacy and public access to court documents will be effective June 10.

The rules also say people filing cases should omit personal identifiers such as Social Security numbers, taxpayer identification numbers, names of minor children, dates of birth, financial account numbers and home addresses.

Omitting these things from documents was called "outrageous overreaching” by Joey Senat, past president of FOI Oklahoma and an Oklahoma State University journalism professor specializing in freedom of information.

These are "life affecting decisions” which could affect things such as who you are going to marry, Senat said.

Dissenting opinion
Supreme Court justices Yvonne Kauger and James Edmondson concurred with limiting personal and private information from documents, but dissented in restricting public access to the court documents on the Internet.

Their dissent said the court's decision was made with input only from court clerks while others affected by the decision — attorneys, judges, the Legislature and the public — were not consulted.

"Courts have a responsibility to balance the risk of harm that may be rendered by the disclosure of sensitive information with the need for a fully open court record,” the dissenting opinion stated.

"I think the court and court clerks underestimated the popularity of access to those records. The public and all kinds of businesses and individuals are going to scream,” said Mark Thomas, executive vice president of the Oklahoma Press Association.

Justices concurring with the rules were Chief Justice James R. Winchester, Justice Rudolph Hargrave, Justice Joseph M. Watt, Justice Tom Colbert and Justice John F. Reif.

Concurring in part and dissenting in part were Justices Kauger and Edmondson.

Dissenting was Justice Steven W. Taylor.

Justice Marian Opala did not participate in the rule-making.

The dissent by Kauger and Edmondson said the court recently increased court costs by $15 to provide for improved computerization of all 77 county clerk dockets.

"However as a result of the Court's order, not only is the Court taking a giant, 30-year leap backwards to a time when the personal computer was nonexistent, the public is now paying for access to a system which is made inaccessible by the order,” the dissenting opinion states.

Senat said the rules sound like a knee-jerk reaction to a problem that doesn't exist. All the Supreme Court has done is cut off the public's greater access to its courts, he added.

Thomas said he doesn't think the justices realize that this is a great opportunity for someone to buy copies of court filings, put them on the Internet and sell them for a profit.

The dissent said the rules should be changed to include provisions that clearly establish that the burden is on the filer of documents to remove restricted information.

Court employees should be immune from liability for unintentional disclosures of information, and documents currently available online should continue to be made available with private information omitted by court clerks, the dissenting opinion states.

"Whether it is a development we welcome, the simple fact is that the tide of new media may not be ignored or dodged,” the dissent states.


 

Toolbar sponsored by: David Stanley Ford
Ads by Yahoo!

Drop 30 Pounds in 3 Weeks
Fastest Weight Loss - Guaranteed! As Seen on CBS News.
EasilyLoseWeight.net
25 Pounds in 2 Weeks
Fast Easy Weight Loss Breakthrough. As Seen on CNN - Try It Here.
LoseWeightEasily.net

shareView All

Buzz Up!


Leave a Comment

Something to say about this topic? Submit a Letter to the Editor online

Thank you for joining our conversations on newsok. We encourage your discussions but ask that you stay within the bounds of our terms and conditions. Please help us by reporting comments that violate these guidelines. To review our rules of engagement, go to Commenting and posting policy.


Log in below or sign up (it's free).





I use OSCN often and if it is taken away we as a public will all lose. If they simply plan not to provide access to SSN's then that would be fine... but addresses and DOB's should remain..sometimes those are our only way left to correctly identify someone listed. Who do we need to contact ?? anyone know?
jamie, bethany - Mar 13, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Absolutely ridiculous. There are thousands of reasons we, the public, need to be able to check people's backgrounds i.e. financial, business and physical protection, etc. I agree that we all need to contact any person of influence to promote the repeal of this new "action" and remember to vote the judges out at the first opportunity.
Kathi, Norman - Mar 12, 2008 at 10:54 pm
One big step backward for mankind.
Jim, Bethany - Mar 12, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore Jim
This is just another knee-jerk reaction to a non-existant problem. The Court of Criminal Appeals has acted in a similar fashion recently regarding juror questionnaires. See Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 1.3(C). When jurors are questioned, their responses are transcribed. However, if the parties elect to use questionnaires to speed things along, these questionnaires are to be sealed and it appears that only the attorneys on appeal can view them at the Court. It seems that the press has no access to them, even though the selection process is wide open and the transcripts would be available. This is just silly. It is also a waste of time for attorneys who don't practice in the OKC area. The rule also requires them to be destroyed after the appeal is decided. This will be a problem if the appeal is to go further and a question involving a juror questionnaire is germane to the case. It's amazing that citizens have a super right to privacy when they are called to be jurors in trials open to the public, but no privacy if they are only arrested and they are required to give a DNA sample, as HB 3194 would require. Go figure.
Mike, Norman - Mar 12, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore Mike
So this would also mean that I would not be able to research who owns the decrepit rental property in my neighborhood online?
Kevin, Oklahoma City - Mar 12, 2008 at 11:20 am
My attorney friend said it will effect OSCN. She does not think we will be able to save OSCN
Thoughtful, Oklahoma City - Mar 12, 2008 at 9:51 am
Now is the time to contact every person in any kind of power in this state, from the governor to the dog catcher. My friend found out that the man she was suppposed to marry was a hot check artist and had been married 5 times. He had lied and said married twice. He had so many lawsuits filled against him for non-payment they were hard to count. All of this because my ex-neighbor Carolyn Cadell scanned all sorts of personal information into public internet records. Isn't this the same person who distroyed many records previously? We all need to wave bye, bye to Carolyn.
Thoughtful, Oklahoma City - Mar 12, 2008 at 9:50 am
Indeed, let's protect the privacy of our dear criminals who have established a PUBLIC Record by breaking the law. Employers shouldn't have the right to check to see if the person interviewing for a job might have stolen or embezzled from a previous employer. Who put these stupid judges in there in the first place? WE DID. Next time, don't automatically vote to renew their terms. Next time vote them out.
Michael, Yukon - Mar 12, 2008 at 9:38 am
This is BS, you can black out the SSN's if you want but I should be able to go online and figure out if my new potential girlfriend has had protective orders taken out against her or been in jail. Privacy my ass.
Outlaw, Edmond - Mar 12, 2008 at 9:28 am
Does this mean that OSCN.net goes away completely as far as public access goes?
Gary, Okmulgee - Mar 12, 2008 at 9:03 am
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore Gary

    News Photo Galleriesview all