HB 11-NO INTERNET ACCESS TO SOME CRIM. CASES  1:56:22 PM CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the next order of business would be SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 11, "An Act restricting the publication of certain records of criminal cases on the Internet; and providing for an effective date." 1:56:32 PM REPRESENTATIVE TAMMIE WILSON, Alaska State Legislature, explained that CourtView is available on the internet through the Alaska Court System, and people are clearly advised to "please read all of it." She opined CourtView can be confusing as to whether a person is convicted of a crime, what part of the crime they are convicted, or whether the person is found innocent or guilty. She further explained that a bill last year [Senate Bill 108] would have taken the data off of CourtView, and also taken away written records located in the court clerk's office. She opined CSHB 15 represents that data should not be for all to see as it could interfere with a person obtaining a job or an apartment. CourtView could put doubt in the public's mind regarding the person's character. 1:59:41 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted this bill is similar to Senate Bill 108, from the twenty-eighth legislature, which was vetoed by Governor Sean Parnell. 2:01:04 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether she had communicated with the current administration for its opinion, and that he recognizes there are significant issues around closing any court records to public view, whether on line or in person. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON opined that the administration was in favor of the original bill, and she assumed that taking out the sealing portion would not cause the administration to oppose the bill. When this bill was re-filed she was approached by the Alaska Court System and advised they were willing to take data off of CourtView. She opined that one of the biggest issues is [closing records to public view] and this bill allows a person to review files at the court clerk's office. She pointed out that there are newspaper articles for everything and the internet is not just about CourtView. 2:03:41 PM CHAIR LEDOUX questioned Representative Wilson's statement regarding the availability of the internet and asked whether an alleged victim would be interested enough to photocopy the records and put them on the internet themselves. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON explained that when a person is arrested the data goes up on CourtView, and the public could follow the case to the end. She further explained that in the event a person is acquitted, 60 days later the data is taken down from CourtView. She indicated that a report of crimes can be found on the internet via a different venue than CourtView and related that when the bill discusses the internet it is solely about CourtView. 2:05:01 PM REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT recalled an issue with Senate Bill 108 last year was that the victim's advocacy groups were interested in still being allowed access to those charged with a crime and had gone through a plea agreement. She quiered if the person pleaded out to a lesser charge whether the case would still be on CourtView. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON responded that all of the charges related to the same case would be on CourtView. REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT questioned whether Ms. Wilson had talked to the victim's advocacy groups about this bill. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON replied that the victim's advocacy groups received HB 11 and SSHB 11, and [the groups] advised Representative Wilson that they would get their comments to her and she has yet to see anything in writing other than that they received the information. 2:06:39 PM The committee took an at-ease from 2:06 to 2:08 p.m. 2:08:56 PM NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Office of Administrative Director, Alaska Court System, said she is available to answer questions about the bill. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to Representative Wilson's comment that after Governor Parnell vetoed the bill last year the Alaska Court System made changes regarding the availability of records. He asked the status of the changes, and what flexibility the Alaska Court System has without legislative action. MS. MEADE advised that the Alaska Court System administratively determined categories of cases that should not appear on CourtView, even though the case files are not confidential. She explained there is an administrative rule that lists case types it does not feel are appropriate for posting on CourtView. Approximately nine months ago, the Alaska Court System took steps to amend the rule to remove from CourtView criminal cases that were dismissed because the prosecuting authority declined to file a charging document, criminal cases dismissed for lack of probable cause under Criminal Rule 5D, criminal cases dismissed for an identity error and, she noted, there are about 10-12 similar categories. She described a large category being when a Petition for Domestic Violence Protective Order is filed and during the Ex Parte hearing the judicial officer finds there is no probable cause to find domestic violence, or there was not a domestic relationship. The court realized it could be held against a respondent even though the court found, within 24 hours of the hearing, that it was basically an unfounded petition. She advised that those were removed from CourtView in response to complaints of people being undeservedly on CourtView and the negative consequences they were suffering. 2:11:13 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked, without passing CSHB 15, in terms of the court's authority, how much latitude the court has to basically restrict what is made available on the internet. He further asked that if the court is aware of the issue of misuse of court data, whether the legislature has to get involved. 2:11:56 PM MS. MEADE offered that the court has the authority to put onto, or take off of, CourtView anything that it prefers. It is within the court's purview not to have CourtView publically available to people as it is a case management system. She remarked that the court could decide not to post cases on CourtView and people would only be allowed to review public records at the courthouse. She highlighted that the court does have its own public records law, and it does believe in public access to records. She offered that the legislature can do more, but the court did what it thought was appropriate. 2:13:00 PM CHAIR LEDOUX assessed that without legislation the court actually would have the authority to not post any of the issues which are encompassed by the bill on CourtView. MS. MEADE answered in the affirmative, that the court could take additional categories of cases down from CourtView. CHAIR LEDOUX questioned the court's rationale in choosing, without legislation, to continue to post cases regarding someone who has been completely acquitted. MS. MEADE said she will be cautious in answering that question because she does not predict what the Alaska Supreme Court Justices are thinking, but they went as far as they felt was appropriate administratively. Since the decision to remove criminal cases where someone is acquitted or dismissed is, as has been seen, somewhat more controversial. It is less an administrative function and more a policy decision that affects Alaskans who differ in their views on this. The court was not prepared to take the [policy] step, leaving it more for the legislature as the public wouldn't necessarily know to comment on any administrative decision. She reiterated that it is more of a policy decision for the legislature than administrative type decision for the court. The court could do it, but she believes the above is the court's thinking as to why it did not. MS. MEADE responded to Chair LeDoux that the Alaska Court System does not have a position on this bill, as they are neutral. 2:15:21 PM REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked the origin of CourtView and why the court decided to put its case management on the internet for public view. 2:15:40 PM MS. MEADE answered that CourtView was purchased as an electronic case management system for the benefit of court staff and attorneys with cases in court. She opined that it was never intended to be a tool to do a sideways criminal background check on someone, and it is not the official criminal background check repository in the State of Alaska. Originally, she noted, it was intended to be the Alaska Court System's case management system and described it as not particularly user friendly for a member of the public. It was put online as a help to the public and to attorneys, but in recent times the thinking is that it has been abused by some people with improper conclusions drawn. There is a warning at the initial screen when a person logs onto CourtView advising people to be careful and not draw improper conclusions, she remarked. 2:17:27 PM REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT questioned whether there had been complaints from the public about misinformation and inaccuracies on CourtView, as there has been misuse in performing a background check or checking out neighbors. She offered the scenario of filing a domestic violence complaint against Chair LeDoux and making the case that because they live in close proximity of each other, "I fear her." She stated the action itself would appear on CourtView whether or not it was dismissed, as it would show Representative Millett filing a protective order against Chair LeDoux. MS. MEADE posited that she does not hear complaints that there are inaccuracies on CourtView as her staff is quite good at entering the data, but people do look at it and draw improper conclusions because, perhaps, they do not understand what it says. She clarified that CourtView includes every document that is filed in a case as it is the docket sheet relating to the Alaska Court System. She explained, with regard to Representative Millett's scenario, in all likelihood it would be found, at the initial hearing, to be unfounded and under the court's administrative rule would be removed from CourtView. She added that it was one of the adjustments the court made on its own in the last six-nine months, and offered that the situation in itself was addressed by the court. 2:20:18 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that the veto message of Senate Bill 108, last year, contains discussions of many issues that merit close attention before making a decision in this area. He asked whether there is a court rule on this subject. MS. MEADE answered, Administrative Rule 40A. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether the Alaska Court System "amended that rule to accommodate either CourtView or what they are doing with this on CourtView." MS. MEADE said she was not sure she understood his question. The amendment to Administrative Rule 40A added approximately eight new categories of cases that the court removed from CourtView, and other cases still remain public, she conveyed. 2:22:56 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG questioned whether this bill would change Administrative Rule 40A. MS. MEADE advised the court does not view this bill as incorporating any sort of rule change. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG quiered whether the court published the changes in Rule 40A in its role as a procedural rule or as a substantive rule. He asked, in the event the legislature chose to amend Rule 40A whether it would require a two-thirds vote as an amendment to a procedural rule. MS. MEADE offered that there is a substantial question as to whether the legislature can amend the administrative rules, as the court does not consider those rules of practice and procedure. She further offered that the court does not view this as an amendment to the administrative rule and; therefore, does not see a problem with the legislature deciding to take this tact in this case. 2:24:13 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether the Alaska Court System believes there are certain rules the legislature does not have power to amend, change, or is completely immune to legislative review. CHAIR LEDOUX interjected that Representative Gruenberg's question has nothing to do with this bill and she directed that he keep the discussion to this bill. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG questioned whether Ms. Meade had any comments regarding his statement, "how this thing can cut both ways." MS. MEADE stated she has no official comment on that and she understands his job can be difficult. 2:25:18 PM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked in the event this bill was [Senate Bill 108], of last year, whether it have required the rule change that took place. MS. MEADE opined that the court has decided the legislature has authority to act in this area and does not perceive it as an amendment to Rule 40D. She advised the legislature can take this action without the court thinking the legislature is improperly amending some court rule. REPRESENTATIVE KELLER expressed that it is valuable that the bill becomes a statute and thanked the sponsor for bringing it forward. 2:26:06 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN provided that a bill like this raises issues of protecting people who are charged improperly for crimes, and it creates concerns. He quiered whether this [bill] is only affecting CourtView and not the bigger question of what is broadly accessible to the public. MS. MEADE confirmed that this bill affects only what is on CourtView, and that Senate Bill 108 would have made the cases confidential. She explained that under this bill someone could still go to the courthouse and look into cases, including those that were fully dismissed or acquitted. In the event this bill passes, it would remove those cases from CourtView, she advised. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether those cases would only be accessible from the courthouse data base. He offered the scenario that a person could go to the courthouse, look up a case, locate a filed domestic violence action, and locate the judge's ruling that there was no relationship subject to a charge. MS. MEADE clarified that the hypothetical is off CourtView now due to the court rule and it has nothing to do with this bill. MS. MEADE, in response to Representative Claman, advised that this bill would allow people to go to the courthouse, look at a computer, and find cases about people who ended up in dismissal and/or acquittal. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether this bill goes further than the current administrative court rule. MS. MEADE responded "further" in that it speaks to cases coming off CourtView that are not mentioned at all in the court rule. "It is a different beast," she offered. 2:30:27 PM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON reminded the committee that every person is innocent until found guilty and CourtView has done an excellent job of trying to warn people that this is not the official view. However, people have become techies and sometimes look on CourtView because they want to know. She mentioned that by definition a person is not a criminal if acquitted at trial or if their case is dismissed by the courts. SSHB 11 asks that Alaskans who have not been found guilty of any wrong doing be given the right of emancipation of social distrust and inherent prejudices. 2:31:34 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG requested the opinion of the Department of Public Safety, and asked whether her office made any inquiry regarding states that may have addressed this issue. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON advised that few states have allowed this type of access outside of the courts. She said [that entities such as] the Department of Health & Social Services and the Department of Public Safety have a data base on line that is pass coded. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked the staff to distribute Alaska Administrative Rule 40A. 2:33:07 PM CHAIR LEDOUX opened public testimony and advised she will not close it today. 2:34:15 PM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER opined that this is partially caused by technology and the internet being available. He noted that the whole idea of defamation previously was cut and dry, and it was understood what was going on in a liable suit. He remarked those types of things are changing because an accusation is easier to read in social media than any type of extended defense. He remarked that he appreciates this bill coming forward because an accusation can be devastating. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested including a sunset date. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON stated she is not opposed to the idea, but people have to pay a lot of money for being at the wrong place at the wrong time. 2:36:32 PM