Should people, found innocent of misdemeanor or felony crimes, have their cases permanently posted on the Wisconsin Circuit Court Access (WCCA) Web site?

Rep. Robin Vos, R-Racine, co-author of a new piece of legislation designed to remove some electronic records from the court system’s Web site, says no.

Assembly Bill 754 would remove cases involving a civil forfeiture or misdemeanor from CCAP within 90 days if the defendant is found not guilty, the case is dismissed, or a decision is overturned on appeal and dismissed. The same standards would apply for felony cases after 120 days.

“I think the heart of it comes down to the fact of if someone is found innocent, why should their case be on the system?” said Vos.

Several supporters of AB 754, including the Wisconsin Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (WACDL), spoke at a public hearing on Feb. 13.

But Director of State Courts A. John Voelker was among those who questioned the intentions of the bill and cited practical problems with the legislation.

Well Informed

Though the bill caps the length of time dismissed cases can be viewed by the public, Voelker said the information could exist infinitely as companies can download and sell case histories.

During his appearance before the committee, Voelker said the 90- and 120-day windows would encourage companies to create databases of relevant court record information, “if there was a profit to be made by their retention and sale.”

“I believe information will still be available, but it will be under the control of private companies rather than the court system,” said Voelker.

One of the primary reasons for the legislation, according to Vos, is to reduce confusion and potential discrimination associated with the cases, especially by employers and landlords.

Voelker said the bill, as written, would not accomplish that goal.

“Sure, this bill will prevent someone’s neighbor from looking up their case, but businesses that download the data are going to have it,” said Voelker. “People are going to pay for companies to scrape that data one way or another.”

Vos admitted that Voelker’s concern was a valid one, but questioned whether people would pay companies for the information when it is still available in courthouse records.

Charles W. Giesen appeared on behalf of WACDL and said the bill was a positive step in reducing discrimination, if not an ideal one. He noted that in the real world, a landlord would not do a records check until a person applied for residency and that could come six months or two years after the charges.

“In those cases, the bill will have accomplished its purpose,” said Giesen.

Statement of Innocence

Currently, the WCCA site features a statement as to whether charges have been dismissed or if the party was found innocent. If cases were removed from the online database, a person could still review the case history at the courthouse where the crime was charged.

“The idea is not to make the information secret,” said Vos.

WACDL President Kirk B. Obear said the WCCA “disclaimer” is not an effective tool in deterring people from misusing or misinterpreting the information.

In his experience as a defense attorney, Obear indicated he has had clients who have been wrongfully charged or acquitted and subsequently struggled to find employment, in spite of the proclamation of innocence on WCCA.

“I’ve seen acquittals because witnesses lied or because of DNA evidence, but the reality is that people are still being treated unfairly even if they are being found innocent,” said Obear.

Peter D. Fox, executive director of the Wisconsin Newspapers Association, opposed the bill on the grounds that there are numerous reasons for knowing an individual’s legal history, guilty or not.

He specifically cited drunken driving citations, which in some cases could be removed.

“It’s particularly useful to see if individuals have repeat charges of the same thing and have managed to either plea bargain or defer prosecution,” said Fox.

In addition to practical concerns, Voelker said the bill could create logistical problems within his department.

“It’s going to require a lot of programming on our part,” said Voelker, who estimated it would cost about $20,000 to implement the details of the bill. “My concern is should we spend a lot of money to do this if it’s not going to accomplish what authors want it to?”

The Assembly committee took no action on the bill after the Feb. 13 hearing and a representative from committee chair Rep. Gary Bies, R-Sister Bay, said it could head to joint finance, or back to committee. The Senate Committee on Public Health, Senior Issues, Long-Term Care and Privacy held a public hearing on the companion bill, SB 458, on Feb. 20.