Legislation would limit online case access

Listen to this article

Proposed legislation could limit the type of content that is freely available on the Consolidated Court Automation Programs (CCAP) Web site.

While Assembly Bill 340 would exempt attorneys from a suggested $10 annual fee to use the site, some lawyers fear the legislation could infringe on their ability to research potential clients.

Milwaukee attorney Tristan R. Pettit said he frequently uses CCAP to help evaluate a client before taking a case.

If a potential client comes in with a personal injury claim, Pettit tries to determine if he or she has been “sue crazy” in the past so he can avoid taking a potentially frivolous case.

The CCAP system contains information on everything from civil and criminal cases to traffic citations filed in circuit court, regardless of whether the person was convicted or found liable.

The bill would cut back on the information on the site, to cover only individuals convicted of a criminal charge or held liable in a civil matter. Attorneys and the general public would only be able to get information on cases which didn’t result in convictions or a finding of liability at the appropriate courthouse, instead of online.

Under the bill, someone who searches for a person’s name on CCAP and subsequently denies that person employment or housing has to notify him or her that that their record was searched on the site. Failure to do so could result in a $1,000 fine.

Court ordered evictions and injunctions against a person would still be available.

Mixed reviews

Pettit, of Petrie & Stocking SC, said restricting the type of information on CCAP could lead attorneys to take cases they otherwise might have avoided.

He said the current system allows him to “run a CCAP check on someone and see they have a criminal charge for check kiting, even if it plea bargained out, [because] I wouldn’t want that person paying me with a check.”

Attorney Keith A. Findley agreed that CCAP is a valuable research tool for lawyers, but suggested the benefits of the bill outweigh the drawbacks.

Findley helps facilitate the Wisconsin Innocence Project and said the proposed legislation would help reduce job and housing discrimination, especially for people exonerated of crimes.

“My interest is in making sure information about charges that have been dismissed or convictions that were vacated have no legitimate use for employers and landlords,” Findley said. “They should not be publicly available.”

But employment attorney Bradden C. Backer, who practices at Albrecht Backer Labor & Employment Law SC, in Milwaukee, said that the proposed bill will make it more difficult for companies to make informed hiring decisions and slow the overall process.

He said employers would rely more on outside vendors to obtain background information on potential employees, which could lead to privacy law compliance issues.

Wisconsin Director of State Courts A. John Voelker and the Wisconsin Department of Justice are also opposing the bill.

In a statement submitted for a legislative committee hearing on October 2, Voelker said the changes would not only limit public access, but also require his office to “track who accesses the information and what they search for.”

He said additional staff within Clerk of Courts Offices around the state would be necessary and upwards of $500,000 could be needed to redesign the current site to filter out certain cases.