Online access for criminal records debated

Quietly and behind closed doors, a group of state employees has been meeting for the past 18 months, deciding how much online access Pennsylvanians will have to criminal court information.

The state introduced a computerized case-management system and database of criminal court information without an accompanying policy on public information. Now the Public Access Ad Hoc Committee -- members of the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts -- is meeting to determine what that policy will be.

And a spokesman for the AOPC indicated it was likely that some public information will continue to be withheld from an online database of criminal court information once a policy is approved.

"Our inclination in Pennsylvania is to go slow," said Art Heinz, spokesman for the AOPC. "The real concern is identity theft. There's a difference between maintaining public access to files at a courthouse and publishing them on the Internet."

In December 2003, the AOPC rolled out what is intended to become a statewide database of criminal case information. But installation was halted at 20 of the state's 60 judicial districts in March after users ranging from judges to docketing clerks filed several thousand complaints about the system.

As of last month, the AOPC's help line had received more than 13,000 individual calls about the Common Pleas Case Management System.

The startup was rocky, court officials admit. And throughout the process, information identifying specific criminal defendants and convicts has been tightly restricted -- even, at first, to judges.

Information such as a convicted criminal's age and street address -- details that help to distinguish between two people with the same name -- are not included in the online record available to the public.

"It's obvious that somebody who doesn't know anything about anything is making the decisions here," said Westmoreland County Judge John E. Blahovec, an outspoken critic of the system.

Judges, probation officers and other court employees now have access to address and date-of-birth information through the computerized system, but the public does not.

Critics have said the public database is of questionable worth because it could lead to confusion about an individual's identity, potentially depicting a person who has never been charged with an offense as having an arrest or a conviction record.

"By doing things this way, they're putting a lot more people under suspicion," said David Patterson, clerk of courts for Westmoreland County. "People could look online and say, 'Hey, that Dave Patterson just got his third DUI. I'm not voting for (him).' Well, it's not me.

"There are a number of people with jobs that are particularly sensitive to this: teachers, people employed in child care, not to mention politicians," he said.

Patterson said citizens should not use the public database for criminal record searches, and instead should call or visit his office in Greensburg. Records at the Clerk of Courts Office are searched routinely for purposes such as pre-employment screening.

The Pennsylvania Newspaper Association's media law counsel, Teri Henning, said the rollout of the new system without a policy in place invites problems.

"Unfortunately, although the AOPC views the policy as 'under development,' it is, in fact, beginning to implement the policy by rolling out the county access project," she said.

"As a result, even though they are still working out the details of their written policy, the public and the media are already feeling the effects of some 'decisions' that have been made regarding online access."

Blahovec said he's not sure how eliminating identifiers helps to prevent crime or preserve privacy.

"It's in nobody's interest to misidentify people," said Blahovec.

Before the case management system was adopted, paying subscribers to a Westmoreland County database service had access to identifying information.

But the AOPC's Heinz said the public's right to know is still in force, even though some information is not available online.

"The underlying thing here is that public information is still public information. You just have to go to the courthouse to get identifying information," he said.

"We want to maintain the right to access public information while at the same time balancing that against safeguarding the privacy and safety of Pennsylvanians."

That's no solution, Henning said.

"As stated by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, '(A)llowing access to particular records only at the courthouse means courts believe in public access only when it's not practical.' This cannot be the case," she said.

Heinz said the primary group being protected by the policies in place now are criminal defendants and convicts, although some records about victims conceivably could be at risk of being released. Information about victims was not made public on computerized dockets in Westmoreland, Fayette and Indiana counties when previous case-management systems were in use.

The Federal Trade Commission received 500,000 complaints about identity theft in 2003, and estimates the loss to identity theft-associated fraud at $400 million that year. But Heinz was unable to cite an example of a criminal defendant who was the victim of identity theft as a result of records being available online.

Nonetheless, he defended the court system's caution, saying state courts have dramatically improved access to statistics and other information about the justice system available online.

Linda Moore Mack, prothonotary and clerk of courts in Indiana County, said she has been disturbed by the attitude of AOPC employees toward public access.

"I asked about how the public can access this information and they said, 'What does the public need to see that for?' That scared me," she said. "I'm in the business of maintaining public records, and they don't seem to understand that."

Heinz said the Public Access Ad Hoc Committee is expected to forward a policy to State Court Administrator Zygmont Pines, who likely will issue a recommendation later this year. Later, Pines will forward the policy to the state Supreme Court, which will publish the proposed policy.

After a period of public comment, the Supreme Court will adopt a policy as it sees fit.