Web changes in place

Listen to this article

The WCCA Web site has been modified to help visitors understand the status of cases.

It is not uncommon for people to casually investigate past criminal activity of friends or family on the popular Wisconsin Circuit Court Access (WCCA) Web site.

For arbitrary users, postings on the site can suffice as a hobby, but in other cases the information is an important tool for attorneys, media and employers.

Regardless of a visitor’s intentions, a committee appointed by Director of State Courts A. John Voelker has revised the site in an effort to make information more easily understandable for everyone.

“For people like us who work in the court setting all day, every day, the language makes sense to us,” said Taylor County Circuit Court Judge Gary L. Carlson, who served on the committee. “The goal was to present the information in a way that makes sense to everyone else.”

The changes went into effect on Sept. 22 and primary among them was the addition of “executive summaries” which detail the status of cases in a convenient manner. A brief synopsis precedes a criminal, traffic, forfeiture or civil case filed with a restraining order.

“The committee found that in a lot of situations, people would get the wrong impression of a case and the summaries will help provide clarification in layman’s terms,” said Voelker. “All the information is still there, but, hopefully, it’s a little clearer now.”

Accompanying the summaries is a brief disclaimer, which implies a violation of state law to discriminate against a job applicant because of arrest or conviction.

While the disclaimer is not a new addition, the committee wanted to make it more prominent for employers investigating a potential employee’s background.

“We tried to clear up some of the confusion there might be about a person’s criminal history,” said Voelker. “There have been hiring issues in the past even if people’s cases had been dismissed. Ultimately, an employer can hire who they want and we can only do so much.”

Carlson added that employers need to research with “an open mind,” but improper use of the information “has been done in the past and will be done in the future.”

Another noticeable change is in retention of records, meaning some cases, which had been available online, have been removed because there is no longer a paper copy on file.

Voelker noted the change was made to coincide with the state Supreme Court Rule 74 which designates minimum time periods for cases to remain on record with the clerk of courts.

“Instances arose where a person would want to contest an inaccuracy on the site, but there was no longer a paper copy of the case to refer to, so nothing could be done,” said Voelker. “This way there is a minimum retention time for all cases and the process will ease administrative work as well.”

Peripheral to the issue is confusion surrounding expungement of a record. Current state statutes limit expungement qualifications, with the most common candidates being juveniles who committed a “youthful indiscretion.”

Both Voelker and Carlson helped institute a committee to have the state Legislature re-examine the process.

	Related Links Wisconsin Circuit Court Access

“Right now there is a very narrow focus and a broader approach might provide a little more clarity on the subject,” said Voelker who noted that expunged cases do not appear on the WCCA site.

Carlson was quick to note that expungement does not mean erasure and because of that, “the concept
doesn’t really give anyone anything.”

While a criminal record is removed from public record by the clerk of courts, physical copies remain accessible at the district attorney’s office and police department, which can be confusing to the convicted.

“Say a person fills out a job application and answers no for having ever been convicted of a crime, thinking their record has been erased,” explained Carlson. “That would be wrong; the employer does a background check and the person gets fired. Not a good situation.”

Currently a pardon is the only way to expunge the record and that is primarily an executive function. Carlson questioned whether or not the judicial system should become active in the process of giving people a “second chance.”

“In order for expungement to really mean anything, the conviction needs to be erased,” said Carlson who did not necessarily advocate judicial influence in the process. “Ultimately, it’s going to be a legislative decision as to what they want it to mean.”