Proposed Policy on Court Records Threatens Public Access Rights

By Gauthier, Ashley | News Media and the Law, Spring 2002 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Proposed Policy on Court Records Threatens Public Access Rights


Gauthier, Ashley, News Media and the Law


ELECTRONIC ACCESS

Prompted by the growing demand for the electronic availability of public records, a coalition of state court administrators offered a model policy on access to court records that could, if put into effect, restrict access to a variety of records.

The coalition designed the proposed policy to establish a consistent standard for state courts to follow with regard to access to court records. The policy explains that "technological innovations have resulted in more court records being available in electronic form" and that access to records is now easier.

"These new circumstances require new access policies to address the concern that the proper balance is maintained between public access, personal privacy, and public safety, while maintaining the integrity of the judicial process," the policy reads.

The State Justice Institute funded the effort to draft a model policy for the states, a project undertaken by The Justice Management Institute. The National Center for State Courts on behalf of the Conference of Chief Justices, the Conference of State Court Administrators and the Model Policy Project Advisory Committee asked for public comments on the model policy.

The Model Policy Project Advisory Committee was to hold a public hearing on the proposed policy on May 17 in Washington, D.C.

The Advisory Committee will then meet to discuss the policy and consider changes. The committee will present the proposed policy at the joint annual meeting of the Conference of Chief Justices and Conference of State Court Administrators in Rockport, Maine, from July 28 to Aug. 1. The attendees at the meeting will vote on whether to endorse the policy.

Access to some records may be "inappropriate," the coalition determined, requiring the need for the new rules. The proposed policy cuts off access entirely to certain categories of records. Section 4.30 denies access to a wide variety of material including financial information, "proprietary business information," copyrighted material, sealed records and "information that is not to be accessible to the public" pursuant to federal or state laws.

Although there is a long-standing rule that the public may not access sealed records, the effects on other categories of information are unclear. For example, although federal laws might bar disclosure of certain materials by federal agencies, there is no federal law that directly bars access to court records. If the material was disclosed by the federal agency and used in a lawsuit, it is unclear why the courts would not be permitted to allow public access to the material.

The proposed policy suggests that a balancing test be used to close off access to other records. This test weighs "risk of harm" and "privacy interests" against general interests in favor of access.

Under current law, access to records may be denied only where there is a compelling interest at stake and the denial of access is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. Most cases on the subject have held that privacy or a theoretical risk of harm are insufficient grounds to restrict access. Thus, if the proposed policy were to become effective, it would substantially change the public's right of access to court records.

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, joined by the Society of Professional Journalists, the Radio-Television News Directors Association and the American Society of Newspaper Editors, oppose the proposed policy, expressing concerns about the drastic changes in law that would follow.

In comments filed about the policy, the press groups reject the new balancing test as too vague.

"Even if the public's right of access to court documents could be restricted in certain circumstances, a court would need to specifically delineate what compelling interests would be at stake rather than rely on a vague and ambiguous term such as `privacy,'" the comments read.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Proposed Policy on Court Records Threatens Public Access Rights
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?