JIS Data Dissemination Committee
July 12, 2002
Friday, July 12, 2002
JIS Data Dissemination Subcommittee Members:
The minutes of the May 24, 2002 meeting were approved as written.
II. New Business
Wayne Seminoff Appeal
The subcommittee discussed Wayne Seminoff's request for a copy of the Summary Trust Account Report for all the Washington State Superior Courts. The report contains summary trust account information by showing different categories, case number and dollar amounts. The report contains restricted case type information and sealed case information. The release of sealed case information is governed by GR15 which allows the release of limited information in an index. This report provides information that is not releasable under GR15. The group agreed to deny the request for a copy of the Summary Trust Account Report but would allow the release of a custom report that has confidential information removed.
Criminal Defense Attorneys-Access Issues
The subcommittee discussed the private defense attorney's and private investigator's request for Public Defender level 20 access. From a policy standpoint, there is equal access. However, the ease of access is different. This was historically justified by public contracts with agencies that handle large volumes of indigent criminal defense cases. Effectively a person can obtain essentially the same information by using the JIS public access level. Our current security system does not allow special security access on a case-by-case or person-by-person basis. If the information is not available, the defense attorney can go before a judge and ask for special access on a case-by-case basis. A future version of our person database will fix some of these security issues. The requests are denied.
III. Old Business
Computer Usage Policy for Judicial Officers
The subcommittee discussed the draft policy with authority section added. The group agreed to delete the last two sentences of section 4 and clarify sections 3, 4, and 5 by using "judicial officer" instead of user or individual.
Judge Stilz moved to send the revised version of the Computer Usage Policy for Judicial Officers to the Judicial Information System Committee for approval and recommendation to the BJA for adoption. The motion was seconded and approved.
Comprehensive Public Access Court Rule
Personal Identifier Discussion. Judge Stilz distributed a copy of the "Individual Information" (PERA) screen for the group to see what personal identifiers were being collected in JIS. Mr. Clarke indicated that the person business rule was being reviewed. AOC looked at the frequency of use of the personal identifiers and found that 4 or 5 were commonly used and the others were not input enough to make a significant difference. JUVIS and SID numbers were helpful identifiers. Physical descriptions helped to rule out people and were needed for warrant purposes. The need for social security numbers was challenged. The business rule requires 3 identifiers and typically the court uses name, date of birth, and driver's license or address if the driver's license number was not available.
The group agreed that only the following personal identifiers should be disseminated: 1) name, 2) address, 3) date of birth, 4) gender, 5) race, 6) height, 7) weight, 8) eye color, and 9) hair color. GR 22 has a specific personal identifiers that cannot be released.
Mr. Hail, from Seattle Municipal Court, stated that he could not speak for the Seattle Municipal Court judges but thought that they would be opposed to the release of the date of birth and residential address of parties. He will inform the judicial officers about the recommendation.
The group discussed the issue of access to citations. The uniform citation contains the driver's license number and social security number of the person. The court rule does not require social security number. The group agreed that the social security number should be removed from the uniform citation.
Review of Version 14 of the draft rule.
Revisions discussed include: 1) the definition of judge should refer to the Code of Judicial Conduct definition of judicial officer, 2) delete the definition of public, public access, and electronic format, 3) definitions D and J should be considered together and rewritten, 4) rewrite line number 63-work product of judge, 5) move exceptions to case record from definitions section to exception section, remove, 6) review section 5 and make changes to reflect records not procedures listed, 7) add a comment to section 6 to clarify that the filed case record is a public record, even if the filing party does not redact restricted personal identifiers, 8) review bulk distribution section to make sure that the language will be compatible with the planned data warehouse, and 9) remove the words case record from section 9 line 251.
|Courts | Organizations | News | Opinions | Rules | Forms | Directory | Library|
|Back to Top | Privacy and Disclaimer Notices|