This Monday, the state Supreme Court reviewed a petition from the State Bar of Wisconsin to grant judges more power to erase online court records wherein either the case was dismissed or the suspect acquitted. Ultimately, the court decided it should be up to lawmakers in the state legislature, not the court. We feel any erasure is an unnecessary measure that would only diminish the transparency of the courts.
Currently, the Wisconsin circuit court system uses a Consolidated Court Automation Program (CCAP) that allows public access to court case records posted online. Anyone can log on to wcca.wicourts.gov and sift through various court records by typing in a person's first and last name. As it stands today, CCAP even documents dismissed cases or instances where the suspect was acquitted.
Although the website always clearly indicates a dismissal or acquittal by the suspect's name, the State Bar argued that potential employers and landlords are misusing CCAP. Regardless of the outcome of the case, people feel like they are being discriminated against for having their name on the site at all—which can be detrimental to employment or housing prospects.
Unfortunately, that has nothing to do with transparency or the public's right to access court records. Also clearly indicated on the main page is a notice to all potential employers: ""It may be a violation of state law to discriminate against a job applicant because of an arrest or conviction record. Generally speaking, an employer may refuse to hire an applicant on the basis of a conviction only if the circumstances of the conviction substantially relate to the particular job.""
If landlords or employers are using CCAP as a background check, they should be able to competently read the law and the case result. Employers and landlords are not allowed to refuse a person housing or a job only because his or her name shows up on CCAP. If they choose to ignore a dismissal or an acquittal, then they are violating the law.
Although we are hesitant to trust claims of such widespread discrimination, in the cases that they do occur it is not the fault of the court for providing open records. Rather, the court should pride itself on providing more transparency, not less.
As evidenced through former Calumet County District Attorney Kenneth Kratz's lengthy scandal, there is no timely or efficient check on the court system and its participants. Allowing the public to access court records, regardless of outcome, is one small step toward ensuring that proper procedure is being followed.
If anything, we feel like CCAP should provide more information about cases. That way, outside parties could better evaluate patterns and trends involving plaintiffs, defendants, attorneys and judges that may be intentionally acting in a certain manner.
CCAP documents the action of both the defendant and the court system. Regardless of exaggerated claims of discrimination, to erase access to particular cases due to acquittal or dismissal tarnishes the historical documentation of the court. It's self-explanatory: The public wants access to court records because they are in fact, public records. To provide anything less is an exercise in censorship, not justice.
