Plan to restrict public-records data draws mounting opposition

Opposition to a proposal to remove certain personal data from court records is mounting and with good reason. Or good reasons, we should say.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court has proposed what's known as Rule 31, which would lead to the removal of such information as dates of birth and addresses from court records. The court has sought public comment on the proposal, and it sure got an earful.

We in the news business have long opposed the move because it would make it more difficult for reporters and editors to verify identities and uncover background information on people in the news.

But now, members of law enforcement, district attorneys' offices and the business community have come out against the proposal, for varying reasons.

Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt wrote the court, saying his office is concerned "about our ability as a law enforcement agency to correctly identify a suspect prior to arrest or a defendant in the courtroom or a proper prior conviction with only partial data available."

The staff in the District 12 district attorneys office, which represents Rogers, Craig and Mayes counties, also spoke up.

District 12 District Attorney Janice Steidley called the proposed rules "an injustice to criminal prosecution."

Assistant District Attorney Donald Palik said that redacting personal information from criminal records would make it difficult or impossible for prosecutors to prove to a jury that a person who was convicted of a prior offense is the same person who is on trial.

The Oklahoma Sheriffs' Association Board of Directors also opposes the proposal, arguing in its letter that the information now available assures law officers "they are locating, arresting and detaining the proper person."

The Greater Oklahoma City Chamber wrote that the proposed rule "would be detrimental to the numerous businesses which both provide as a product and utilize during the hiring process detailed court records to prevent the employment of convicted felons."

Other responses noted that identity theft arising from personal information in court records has not proven to be a big problem.

And, another complaint was that restricting such personal information would lead to higher fees for people needing to conduct investigations. An official with a background screening company said the rule could even result in more discrimination against minorities if employers cannot obtain the information they need on an applicant's background.

Does the court need any more reasons to jettison this proposed rule? We think not.

Editorials

Letters

Readers Forum

David Averill

Mike Jones

Janet Pearson

Julie DelCour

Bruce Plante

Plan to restrict public-records data draws mounting opposition

Opposition to a proposal to remove certain personal data from court records is mounting and with good reason. Or good reasons, we should say.

Your bookmark will appear on your Profile page. Please give it a title, and short description so that visitors to your page will understand where the bookmark leads.
Bookmark Title :

Bookmark Text :