Secrecy move stirs discord
Secrecy move stirs discord
By Nolan Clay
Comments 
8
Published: March 15, 2008
Oklahoma Supreme Court Justice Marian Opala criticized fellow justices Friday, calling new secrecy rules on court records ill-conceived, censorship and shocking.
More Info
How records fight mistaken identity
Terry L. Nichols got a $20 traffic ticket in Tulsa County in 2005.
No, it wasn't the Nichols who helped build the Oklahoma City bomb. It was a different guy, who, according to court records, was born in the same year but on a different date.
Richard Nixon has a protection order against him in Oklahoma County. No, it's not the dead former president. The Nixon with the order against him is much younger, according to court records.
Those are two examples of how details in court records are important to verifying identity.
Journalists consider birth dates from court records key information to assure accuracy in their work. So do private investigators, lawyers and law enforcement officers.
Businesses use the personal information in court records to screen potential employees. And those into the dating scene check out potential suitors before the first kisses.
That all could change once new Supreme Court rules go into effect barring certain personal information such as birth dates from court records.
Advertisement
"How can you keep public records from public knowledge?” he said from a national meeting in
Tucson,
Ariz.
"I don't understand how anybody who is a lawyer can say that a government can ration, censor or screen public records from the public. There's just no way.”
Opala is known as a champion of the rights found in the First Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution. A First Amendment award is named for him. He said "the First Amendment does not allow public information to be screened or rationed.”
"You cannot ration public information. It has to flow, and nobody can stop it,” he said.
Justices have faced widespread criticism this week over the new policy.
Justices ordered the removal of court documents from the Internet. They also ruled that court documents filed at the courthouse in the future cannot have certain personal information such as birth dates.
Justices said they acted to keep sensitive information from identity thieves.
Five justices voted for the rules. Two agreed with part of the policy and disagreed with the rest.
Justice Steven Taylor voted against the new policy and Opala chose not to vote even though he opposes it.
"I decided not to participate in that brouhaha because I've been in enough controversies with the court,” Opala said.
The rules do not go into effect until June 10.
Chief Justice James Winchester wrote in a letter to a Senate leader, "We believe this 90-day window will give us time to further refine the particulars of policy implementation.”
The chief justice also is welcoming public comments. Comments can be e-mailed to
Michael Evans, the administrative director of the courts, at
michael.evans@oscn.net
.
Court officials said the new policy came about in part after the
National Center for State Courts warned them last month that in other states "there are several documented instances of identity theft that were based on information gleaned from court Web sites.”
Opala said he is unsure whether the rules will be revised.
"It's difficult to predict. At times, they dig in when there is a public outcry,” he said. "To me, it was shocking that they took the position to begin with. In the face of the First Amendment, there just isn't any question.”
Leave a Comment
News Photo Galleriesview all
Prev
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).