Toolsview all

David Stanley Ford

Secrecy rules are troubling to top senator
State secrecy rules are troubling, senator says

By John Greiner    Comments Comment on this article9
Published: March 14, 2008

The Senate's co-leader said Thursday that state Supreme Court rules blocking public access to court records online send a troubling signal, and he hopes justices are aware the rules weren't received favorably by lots of people.

NewsOK Related Articles

"I think it's a little bit of an overreaction,” Sen. Glenn Coffee said of rules the court said were designed to balance privacy rights and public access to court documents.

The rules issued Tuesday and effective June 10 would prohibit someone who files a court document such as an attorney from including some personal information such as birth dates, Social Security numbers and home addresses.

Coffee spoke with Chief Justice James Winchester after learning about the proposed rules.

"After I spoke with him I was a little less concerned with what he's trying to do, but I think there's some problems ... at the very least I think they communicated it poorly,” Coffee said.

The court is trying to revamp the system to cover confidential information such as Social Security numbers, Coffee said.

"I think that's fine, and I think that's a worthy goal. But the fact of the matter is, even if they were to do what they're saying, you could walk in and request a pleading today that has all that same information, so they're not being consistent in that,” he said.

Also Thursday, an official with the Oklahoma Press Association said the courts are looking at the negative aspects of having personal information online and not the positive points.

"There's a lot of positive values to having these records available to the common man without having to go to the courthouse,” said Mark Thomas, executive vice president of the Oklahoma Press Association. "If you think someone has a lawsuit in Harmon County, you are going to have to drive to Hollis and get in line at the courthouse.”

For example, someone could check another person's driving record, Thomas said.

Also, someone considering entering into a contract with someone else could check the person's background, he said.

Toolsview all

David Stanley Ford



Need Affordable Health Care?
Get Affordable Health Insurance Quotes Online - Plans from $30 / Month
USInsuranceOnline.com
Refinance Now at 4.25% Fixed
No hidden fees-4.4% APR! No obligation. Get 4 free quotes. No SSN req.
MortgageRefinance.LendGo.com

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).





The Childrens Rights wanted the birth dates of people who were working for DHS so they could check their criminal backgrounds to see if any of them had child molestation in their criminal records and then, the Judges come up with hiding these records from people in the media and on-line viewers. Ridiculous!!!
Candace, Lakeland - Mar 14, 2008 at 8:30 pm
When I was in Oklahoma county district, not to long ago, I was able to get probate records of my family, it showed false records cause my family owned 2 houses, and the Judge over probate showed nothing in the file... My daughter owned over $290,000.00 in mortgages that were in her name but the Judge over her probate described her estate to be nothing, I guess taking her Dads word for it, even though his own home was in her name and he did'nt want it tied-up in Probate Court. He quickly, put it in his current wifes name - Debbie Garrett.
Candace, Lakeland - Mar 14, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Who knows someone in power positions might be like Governor Spitzer and running a Prostitution Ring and doesn't want to get caught...
Candace, Lakeland - Mar 14, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Look at the people who are trying to conceal these records! They should be open about who owns what, who is a part of a corporation trying to do this or that, whos paid this tax or that tax. I think someone has done something they don't want other people to get a hold of or they might loose their seat.
Candace, Lakeland - Mar 14, 2008 at 11:19 am
I have no reason to believe that I will ever initiate a computer search for any court records. Nevertheless, I share Se. Coffee's concerns, and agree to a large extent with Mark Thomas' comments.
Jan, Oklahoma City - Mar 14, 2008 at 9:32 am
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore Jan
Every federal pleading filed except those specifically placed under court ordered seal are available on the Pacer system, to which everyone with an internet connection can subscribe. Why would Oklahoma state court pleadings be so much more dangerous as to require a higher level of security than federal court pleadings? (I have omitted mention of Westlaw, Lexis-Nexis and a hundred other places that federal court pleadings, and increasingly, even state court pleadings, are available.) Oklahoma already largely tracks the federal rules of civil procedure, why not their pleading availability protocols as well?
Rodney, Oklahoma City - Mar 14, 2008 at 9:21 am
Using the word "Secrecy" in this news article is misleading and inflamatory. Let's try to at least give the appearance of obective reporting and not trying to "make the news". They are not making the court records "secret" but only limiting the relative ease in which an unscrupulous person could read documents from anywhere in the world. If you want to see if someone has a lawsuit against them in another county or check their driving record then this information is still available under the new rules because the docket will still be on-line. There was too much personal information that was too easily available to anyone which in turn made the use of the OSCN highly efficient for identity thieves and others.
Okie, Muskogee - Mar 14, 2008 at 9:07 am
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore Okie
I disagree with no access to public records. I do agree that not listing the social security number and addresses is a more moderate way of protecting someone's privacy.
Richard, Oklahoma City - Mar 14, 2008 at 8:55 am
The first impression of this action is "What else are they trying to hide," and the next impression is "Who are they trying to throw business to," as 'normal' working people will not have access to this information without taking off work to physically visit the courthouse.
Kevin, Oklahoma City - Mar 14, 2008 at 8:05 am

    News Photo Galleriesview all