Access to state court records

From Judgepedia

Access to state court records

Lawsuits about access to state court records

Table of Contents:

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada New Hampshire • New Mexico • New Jersey • New York North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island South Carolina • South Dakota• Tennessee Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

References

Access to state court records involves these considerations:

• Are the administrative records of judges and courts in a state available to the public under a state statute or administrative rule? Administrative records covers areas such as administrative budgets, correspondence (including e-mails and text messages) of judges and court staff, vendor contracts entered into by courts, and so on.
• Does a state court system provide online access to court filings such as decisions, briefs, complaints and lawuits? Questions in this area include ease of online access, how much the end-user is charged for access to online court filings, and how many of these documents are available online and for which courts in a state.
• For court filings that are not online, how hard or easy is it for a reporter or other interested party to gain access to those court filings?
• Sealed court records: Do what extent are state court records sealed properly or improperly?
• Exemptions: In a state that permits access to its administrative or court records, are there any exemptions?

Alabama

Court records

• The Alabama Public Records Law does not specifically address public access to administrative records of the Alabama courts and judicial system.^[1]

• In State ex rel. Kernells v. Ezell it was held that records of the office of the probate judge are "public writings" within the meaning of the predecessor to [section] 36-12-40 and are "free for examination [by] all persons, whether interested in the same or not").^[2]
• In Birmingham News Co. v. Hobbie, it was held that the media should have access to records for state vehicle license plates.^[3]

The Alabama attorney general's office has offered opinions relevant to access to court records:

• 1983: County circuit court register office records are public.^[4]
• 1984: Court district court records of executed search and arrest warrants are public records.^[5]
• 1986: Probate judges who are asked to provide county voting lists and applications cannot make those lists available for non-governmental use but the names and precincts of registered voters can be made available to the public.^[6]
• 1988: Lists submitted to an appointing board from which poll workers are appointed is a matter of public record.^[7]
• 2002: "Once a document is recorded in probate court, it becomes a public record. Upon written request of the recording party, a probate judge may redact the confidential portions of a settlement document that was erroneously recorded in the probate court."
• 2003: "The federal law relating to the confidentiality of drug defendant records applies only to those alcohol and drug education/treatment providers that maintain such records for the purpose of treatment, diagnosis, and referral of patients and does not restrict a jailer from recording identifying information regarding the defendant or the defendant’s arrest in a jail logbook. The contents of a jailer’s logbook, which records identifying information about a defendant and the charge for which he or she has been placed in the custody of the jail, is public information."
• 2004: "A mugshot in a computer database is a public record that must be provided to bail bonding companies under the Open Records Law unless it falls within a recognized exception."
• 2002: "Upon the written request of a veteran, a probate judge may redact personal and confidential information from the veteran’s military discharge certificate filed in probate court if the probate judge determines that redaction is feasible."^[8]
• 2005: "The boards of registrars and probate judges may provide only the names and precincts of registered voters to persons or entities, unless the entity requesting the information is a political party. A political party is entitled to obtain all voter registration information in the possession of the boards of registrars or probate judges, except for social security numbers. The boards of registrars or probate judges may collect the actual cost, if any, of providing this information."
• 2007: "Under section 41-9-625 of the Code of Alabama, the Sheriff of Baldwin County is required to expunge, from the Sheriff's Office, the Baldwin County Corrections Center, or the Corrections Center's website, identification information, including the booking photograph, on a defendant who is released without charge or is cleared of an offense."
• 2007: "Section 41-13-6 of the Code of Alabama applies to state agencies, not a county office such as the probate judge's office. Thus, the probate judge is not authorized by section 41-13-6 to redact social security numbers from documents filed in the probate court."
• 2008: "A criminal complaint supporting an unexecuted arrest warrant is not subject to disclosure under the Open Records Act."
• 2008: "The Code of Alabama does not authorize the Secretary of State to provide a current statewide voter list to the Administrative Office of Courts without charging the uniform fee required by section 17-4-38 of the Code."
• 2009: If individuals use a personal camera or other electronic device to make a copy of a public records, an agency may not charge its normal copying fee and a probate judge does not have the authority to refuse the use of personal cameras or other electronic devices for receiving copies or retrieving information from public records unless the camera or other electronic device unduly interferes with the operation of the office of the probate judge.^[9]

Sealing records

In 1993, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled in Holland v. Eads that "a trial court can only seal court records upon a written finding that clear and convincing evidence indicates the document sought to be sealed (1) contains a trade secret, (2) is a matter of national security, (3) promotes scandal or defamation, (4) pertains wholly to private family matters, such as divorce, (5) poses a serious threat of harassment, exploitation or other harm to the parties to the actions, or (6) poses the potential for harm to third persons not parties to the litigation."^[10]

Alaska

Court records

Access to government records in Alaska is generally covered by the Alaska Public Records Act. However, it is a separate administrative rule promulgated within the Alaska judiciary, Administrative Rule 37.5 of the Alaska Rules of Court, that provides access to documents within the Alaskan judiciary.^[11] Rule 37.5 was first adopted in 1982. It was amended in January 1989 and January 1990 and again, most recently, on October 15, 2006.^[11]

D. John McKay, an Alaskan attorney who specializes in access to government documents, has written, "It is uncertain whether the general public records statutes apply to the court system, or if instead the separation of powers doctrine means the judiciary is not bound by the statute."^[12]

A 1994 revision of the state's Open Meetings Act said that the judicial branch did not fall under the scope of that part of the state's sunshine apparatus.^[13]

When parties to a lawsuit want government documents that do fall under the scope of Alaska Public Records Law, they are supposed to ask for those documents through discovery, rather than through using the state's sunshine law. People who are not parties to the relevant litigation can obtain the same government documents using the state's sunshine law.^[12]

Court opinions

The Alaska Case Law Service, sponsored by the Alaska State Court Law Library, provides access to opinions of the Alaska Supreme Court and Alaska Court of Appeals. Opinions are available back to 1960. They are published in West's Pacific Reporter and West's Alaska Reporter.^[14]

Arizona

• Rule 123, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court governs the public's access to state court documents in Arizona.^[15]
• Report on Rule 123 from the Arizona First Amendment Coalition

Arkansas

Court records

The Arkansas Freedom of Information Act applies to any "public official or employee" and to any "governmental agency".

However, in Arkansas Newspaper Inc. v. Patterson in 1984, the Arkansas Supreme Court said that applying the state's sunshine law to the Arkansas judiciary violates the separation of powers doctrine.^[16]

In 1991, Arkansas Attorney General Winston Bryant wrote opinion 91-051 which said that records of the Miller County Law Library Committee are public records under the Arkansas FOIA law, subject to that act's exemptions. However, records of the law library that were turned over to Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct, whose records are confidential, became confidential when they were turned over. The law library turned down a request for the records before the records were given to the Committee on Professional Conduct. According to Opinion 91-051, when the law library turned down the original request, it was acting contrary to the state's FOIA law, and if the requester had complained at that point, before the records were given to the disciplinary committee, the requester would have been entitled to the records.^[17]

On April 11, 1995, the attorney general's office advised in Opinion 95-031 that tape recordings made by court reporters are subject to the state's FOIA law "...in that they meet the definition of 'public records' under that act. 'Public records' for purposes of the FOIA, include 'writings, recorded sounds, films, tapes or data compilations in any form ... which constitute a record of the performance or lack of performance of official functions which are or should be carried out by a public official or employee....' Such tapes are thus subject to inspection and copying under the FOIA unless an exemption operates to exclude them from disclosure."^[18]

On March 10, 2006, Mike Beebe, who was then the state's attorney general, wrote Opinion 2005-262. This opinion, which focused on search warrant affidavits, also made some broader observations: "It has been suggested that the FOIA has limited applicability to court records. Nonetheless, two other avenues of access are relevant: the First Amendment, and the common law. It is unclear in Arkansas, however, whether a First Amendment right to access such documents exists, or whether the right is based solely on common law principles."^[19]

Sealing records

• In 95-031, the Arkansas attorney general's office wrote an opinion saying that the public has a common-law right of access to judicial records, but courts have the inherent authority to seal them in some circumstances.

• In Attorney General Opinion 2005-262, Mike Beebe wrote, "The Arkansas Supreme Court has indicated that under the common law, a trial court’s authority to seal records, absent an authorizing statute or court rule, is very limited and must "lie beyond a formidable threshold.' In my opinion, therefore, search warrant affidavits may not be sealed unless the court determines, after balancing the competing interests, that closure is necessary to preserve weightier interests." Beebe also wrote, "Unfortunately, however, the Arkansas Supreme Court has not specifically articulated the circumstances under which the common law right of access must give way to the court’s inherent authority to seal records."^[19]

Two Arkansas Supreme Court decisions in 1994 addressed the question of sealing court records:

• Arkansas Best Corp. v. General Electric Capital Corp.. The trial court ordered records of the settlement in the case sealed. The appellate court reversed that decision, saying that there is a common law right of access.^[19]
• Arkansas Dep't of Human Services v. Hardy. A court chancellor sealed the final order in a paternity suit. The appellate court reversed, alluding to common law public access principles.^[19]

Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc. was a 1978 Arkansas Supreme Court decision that recognized a common law right to access court documents.^[19]

Court opinions

Decisions of the Arkansas Supreme Court and the Arkansas Court of Appeals going back to the spring term of 1996 are published on the main Arkansas court website.^[20]

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

• On October 8, 2009, the Oklahoma Supreme Court adopted a rule change regarding how requests for electronic data will be handled. The new rule prohibits "distribution of all or a significant subset of electronic case information" available through either the Oklahoma Supreme Court Network or the On Demand Court Records system that provides online criminal and civil court filings for most of Oklahoma's counties. Joey Senat, the past president of FOI Oklahoma, a public information advocacy organization, expressed concern over the new rule, saying, "Meaningful analysis of the state's court systems would be nearly impossible under an Oklahoma Supreme Court plan to bar bulk distribution of electronic case information" and "The justices provided no explanation or justification for the rule."^[21]

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

• In its 2009 decision City of Federal Way v. Koenig, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled that the administrative records of the Washington court system are exempt from the state's public records law. The case arose when the City of Federal Way declined to release correspondence to and from Michael Morgan, a municipal court judge in the city. The basis of the high court's claim is that the language of the state's public access law defines "local agency" as a “county, city, town, municipal corporation, quasi-municipal corporation, or any special purpose district, or any office, department, division, bureau, board, commission or agency thereof, or other public agency" and courts do not fall under that definition.^[22]

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

References