The Florida Supreme Court issued Administrative Order #AOSC14-19 on March 19, 2014, which essentially lifts a 10-year moratorium on electronic access to court records. The Supreme Court sent Florida clerks a complex spreadsheet of rules detailing what level of access each person or entity gets. Judges and court personnel have the greatest access. People involved in a case, attorneys and law enforcement officials will be given less access than judges but more than an anonymous member of the public. For confidential records, such as those involving sexual crimes, the public will still have to submit requests to our office so we can redact personal information from the documents under Florida restrictions. While your initial reaction to this news is most likely positive, in Leon we believe the administrative order appears to find a solution to a problem that did not exist for us. Let me explain. 

For over 10 years, the Leon County Clerk & Comptroller's Office has provided a free subscription website called the Judicial Website. Attorneys, state agencies, law enforcement and other governmental entities can see all of the case information, docket entries and images consistent with the restrictions in AOSC14-19. We have agreements with those who have access to our subscription website and assign logins and passwords. The agreement form captures information regarding employment, address, email, phone number and other contact information; while it does not currently require notarization, the administrative order requires access agreements to be notarized.  

We also operate a public website where the general public can search case information on traffic and civil case types. The general public can see case information and docket entries, events, and parties, but not the docket images. This is a great service to the public interested in following the status and events in cases. Also on our public website, individuals wanting to pay a traffic citation can search by name or citation to find their cases. Given that names are not unique, a search brings back all cases with the pertinent citation information (offense, amount, etc.), and allows individuals to select their cases, see the amounts owed, when payment is due, if they have made payments, and also make a payment. This is an important service to the public and a savings in taxpayer dollars since it does not require my office to provide this information in person or over the phone. Under the administrative order, however, private citizens wanting to make payments could be constrained in what they could see and, without the citation in hand, may have trouble identifying their citations and making payments. 

We also have an active collections program with individual case-related information, amounts owed, and other relevant data on the web. We are finalizing a process of allowing citizens, after finding and viewing their case(s), to make payments. But, under the administrative order, citizens would not be able to find this information without completing and notarizing an access application.  

I fully support the position that any sealed or expunged record should not be on the web. I also believe that any public court record with Social Security, credit cards, birthdates, etc., should be redacted prior to being displayed. There should be limited or no access to juvenile case information and other sensitive cases or filings. Those exceptions are given. Personally I don't support putting many of the sensitive but still public records on the web including family law cases. While these are public and available for public inspection, I don't support publishing them on the web. There is a significant distinction between public and published.   

It is my understanding that under Chapter 119 public entities are precluded from asking citizens their name or the purpose of their request when they are seeking to review public records. While the judiciary has ruled that their records do not fall under Chapter 119, under the model created by the administrative order, citizens would have to identify themselves through the log-in and password and lose that anonymity if they want access to more than rudimentary information. This seems inconsistent with other public records requirements and would have a chilling effect upon citizens seeking assess to court-related public records. Florida has taken pride in being open, transparent and this seems contrary to that direction. 

Another example of inconsistency is to the effect this administrative order will have on the Florida Courts E-filing Portal. It has been a desire of the courts to allow pro se citizens to file through the portal. At a recent meeting of the Florida Courts E-filing Authority Board, it was reported that no state requires registration by the general public to file electronically. We don't know today who is filing when we receive a filing through the mail or in person; therefore, in assessing the risk, the Authority felt that there should not be a registration requirement for pro se filers to use the portal. Assuming that this is the model that will be used, pro se filers would not have to register to file, but unless they had registered, they would not have access to case information through the state's Comprehensive Case Information System (CCIS) or through a link back to the local case maintenance systems. 

The Florida Court Clerks and Comptrollers Association (FCCC) is holding discussions with the Office of the Supreme Court Administrator (OSCA) and Judge Hilliard, the Florida Courts Technology Commission (FCTC) Chair to assist with resolution of issues associated with the administrative order. The order, as written, would present significant problems for us in complying and may result in us discontinuing our subscription website for some period of time and changing information that we provide on our public website. Further, the order requires us to apply for approval, enter a test period and during the testing period collect information from users that we currently are not in a position to collect. All data displayed on the public and subscription websites would have to be replicated on a separate server. All existing users of our subscription site would have to sign and return notarized forms to continue to receive services. It is also unclear whether clerks that can comply with portions of the order can incrementally provide those services until such time as all of the requirements are met.   

We want to advise you in advance of the potential problems and disruption in services that may flow from this administrative order. We look forward to receiving information concerning the outcome of the discussions and clarification on the issues. As we learn more we will keep you advised.