Published: March 13, 2008 09:59 am      

Chief justice defends secrecy action

OKLAHOMA CITY — Oklahoma Supreme Court Justice James Winchester, responding to a wave of criticism, said Wednesday it was necessary to cut off Internet access to court records to protect people from identity theft.

“Our concern and our focus is to make sure that people’s Social Security numbers, bank account numbers and other personal identifiers don’t wind up on the Internet through a pleading that is filed by a lawyer,” Winchester said.

Meanwhile, Sen. Richard Lerblance, D-McAlester, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, carried legislation to raise court fees to help all 77 counties join the court’s information system.

“I think if you start putting restrictions on this, you are being counterproductive,” Lerblance said.

Winchester, however, could not cite an instance where someone has been the victim of identity theft because of information found on the court system’s Web site.

He commented a day after the court issued new rules allowing only court dockets to be provided to the public over the Internet. The rules also restrict information that could be obtained from lawsuits filed at courthouses in the 77 counties.

Winchester said several court clerks have expressed concern about the release of some information.

“Their concern is say an account number happens to be filed in a probate case or a divorce or some other pleading and that individual is exposed to identity theft,” he said.

“This is not a permanent policy at all,” Winchester said of the rules, scheduled to go into effect on June 10.

He said he hopes that “in the not too distant future” court officials will find a way to provide Internet access to more material, with some information omitted for privacy reasons.

He said the court will look at charging individuals and business for accessing information that previously has been free, but “I hope we do not have to do that.”

Patricia Presley, Oklahoma County court clerk, said the court rules went too far and she will ask the court to modify them.

“There will be long lines at the courthouse,” Presley said. She added the rules will increase legal costs for businesses and individuals who now obtain information online.

“First and foremost, I believe government records belong to the citizens and should be presumed open and available to the people for their inspection,” she said.

Mark Thomas, executive vice president of the Oklahoma Press Association, said he is studying Oklahoma’s situation in the context of what other states are doing. He quoted one court administrator from a national center as saying that whether anyone likes it or not “the entire world is going electronic and this is a step backward.

“We have to balance the right of privacy and the right of access. But if you want privacy, settle your affairs in private. If you are forced to use the taxpayer-funded public courts, expect much of your information to be made public.”

The type of information available online from the courts varies drastically from county to county.

For instance, in Payne County, “all of our documents are available online,” said Terry Sahs, deputy court clerk, including such things as pleadings in civil cases and protective orders.

In Tulsa County, however, Court Clerk Sally Howe Smith said she chose to keep most documents off the Internet because “I didn’t have control over sensitive information.”

The new rules were endorsed by Winchester and four other justices.

They were criticized by Joey Senat, past president of FOI Oklahoma and a journalism professor at Oklahoma State University, as “a knee-jerk reaction to technology that gives the public greater access.”

Justices Steven Taylor, Yvonne Kauger and James Edmondson did not sign off on the new rules, which mandate that lawyers omit “personal identifiers” from all court documents, including home addresses, dates of birth, taxpayer identification numbers, Social Security numbers, names of minor children and financial account numbers.

Kauger was joined in a separate opinion disagreeing with the majority of the court.

“What I disagree with is the instantaneous restriction of public access to current public court documents online,” Kauger wrote.

“The court made this decision with input only from the court clerks. Others directly affected by the decision — the bar, the bench, the Legislature, the public — were not consulted,” she said.

Jenny Hopkins, president of the Oklahoma Court Clerks Association, said discussions had been held for more than a year with state court officials and others about what information should be made available on the Internet.

Hopkins said it had nothing to do with court clerk’s making money off charging for copies of filings. “We don’t make that much money off of our copies,” she said.