THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1997, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, February 9, 1997 TAG: 9702070976
SECTION: COMMENTARY PAGE: J1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY MARC DAVIS, STAFF WRITER
LENGTH: 111 lines
Picture a day when you can get every public record from the local courthouse via the Internet - 24 hours a day, rain or shine.
Imagine reading your neighbors' deeds, wills, lawsuits and divorce records on your home computer. Imagine your neighbors reading yours.
Would that be a valuable public service?
Or would it be an invasion of privacy?
The idea has provoked heated debate on the Internet among Virginia lawyers. No wonder: A state lawmaker from a rural district far out west - Del. Clarence E. ``Bud'' Phillips, a Democrat from Russell County - has proposed a law that would let court clerks put public records on the Internet.
On Jan. 30, the House of Delegate passed the bill unanimously. The state Senate probably will vote this month.
Supporters say it is a very democratic idea - an effort to bring the least accessible branch of government, the courts, within everyone's reach. After all, supporters say, court records are already open to anyone who can take time off work, travel to the courthouse, find a parking spot, request the files, then read or copy them.
Lawyers and journalists already can get some local court records by computer link to Richmond - abstracts of criminal, civil and divorce cases.
Why not open the records to everyone everywhere?
``This is a very important measure for the legal community as we move into the 21st century,'' says the bill's prime mover, J. Jack Kennedy Jr., clerk of courts in Wise County.
Last month, Kennedy sent e-mail messages to lawyers and court-watchers throughout Virginia, urging them to lobby state legislators in support of the bill.
``The legislative measure empowers the people to access their own public records . . . without even having to find a parking space in close proximity to the busy courthouse square,'' Kennedy wrote. ``Ultimately, the cost of government will be reduced and service greatly enhanced.''
But wait, critics say. Isn't this all a little scary?
``What if all court case files were on-line?'' Richard J. Byrd, a Fairfax lawyer, asked in a recent Internet debate. He posed a hypothetical example: ``I know my neighbor is in a divorce fight with her husband and I'm a curious type, so I just log on and scope out her divorce file. WOW!
``Some real juicy stuff there. Why, I never realized that she and the president of our homeowner's association were having an affair. And it is really interesting to read that she accuses her husband of selling child porn on the WWW (World Wide Web) with pictures taken of the neighbor girls in the Brownie troop.
``Is there a problem here with all our dirty linen being quite so accessible?''
Nope, no problem at all, replied Joseph J. DeStefano, a Suffolk police sergeant who follows legal issues on the Internet (and speaks only for himself, not the department).
``I think public records are just that - public,'' DeStefano said. ``Court records belong to the public, not the individuals involved in the case. . . .
``It seems contradictory to me to say we should keep it cumbersome and difficult for the public to obtain records which belong to the public when the means are available to make them more accessible.''
Ditto, replied Jackson S. White Jr., a lawyer in Abingdon, in western Virginia, near Bristol.
``No problem to me,'' White wrote. ``Public means public and I don't think inspection of court records should be the exclusive province of people with time on their hands.''
White recalled an old woman who had enough time to read every new will filed in the local courthouse. She loved to talk about her findings, to anyone who would listen.
``You are saying only `idle folks' such as this woman should be able to peruse court records randomly?'' White asked. ``People will do so. We know that. I happen to think the playing field should be level so that anyone who wants to see public records can do so.''
What about embarrassing personal information that finds its way into court files for no good reason? asked Christopher T. Picot, an Alexandria lawyer.
He recalled the case of a young, single woman who filed suit over a traffic accident. Her opponent's lawyer noticed from her medical records that she had had an abortion some time ago.
``He asked her about that in a deposition,'' Picot wrote. ``The information most likely would not have been admissible at trial, but the apparent fear that it would be brought out caused the case to either be dropped or settled on terms very unfavorable to the plaintiff.''
It would be interesting, Picot said, if folks who made false allegations in court proceedings like lawsuits or divorces were held liable for defamation. That's not the case now. Usually, anything said in court or in court papers is considered protected speech.
``Perhaps clients would have to vouch for the truthfulness of allegations or face defamation actions,'' Picot said, ``and attorneys would have to face civil actions if they acted without reasonable investigation.
``The rules and law regarding perjury and sanctions do not seem to have had a great effect on people's actions in some cases.''
Most case files, of course, never see public light. News media aren't interested in the great majority of records, and it takes too much time for most folks to snoop on their neighbors' deeds and divorce files. Some are sealed by judges anyway.
Supporters of Internet access say it would be valuable mostly to professionals - lawyers, journalists, Realtors and others - who track such things as deeds, liens, lawsuits and convictions.
In any case, says Kennedy, the court clerk who started the debate, sensitive documents such as divorce files and lawsuit depositions probably will not be available on-line for many, many years. It would take too much time, space and money to enter everything into a computer.
For now, Kennedy says, his priority is putting more mundane public documents on-line: court dockets, judges' opinions and indexes for deeds, liens, wills and marriage licenses.
``Let us not advance too far out in time in debate just yet,'' Kennedy told lawyers in the recent Internet debate. ``Circuit Court clerks have no means in Virginia to place civil and criminal records on the 'net cheaply.
``It is time to build the bridge to the future,'' Kennedy said, ``but little bridges for the next few years.''
KEYWORDS: INTERNET DIVORCE