|
Court
Records
Electronically held documents filed by litigants,
along with judicial rulings, have been available to
the public via internet remote access for over a
decade. Initially made available to those on dial-up
connections, access underwent a major migration to
the internet in approximately 1998 in the United
States. This watershed event along with a number of
other ameliorations to the federal PACER system
(Public Access to Court Electronic Records) resulted
in the following proclamation by the Administrative
Office of the United States Courts in 2001: “The
advancement of technology has brought the citizen
ever closer to the courthouse.”
Citizens, businesses, journalists, corporate
entities and academics now have unprecedented access
to the details of specific court cases thanks to the
system built by the Administrative Office of the
United States Courts and Judicial Conference.
However to conceptualize PACER only in this context
is to disregard much of its potential impact and
usage. Many of the gains anticipated in transparency
of judicial affairs remains elusive. The expected
sea-change remains largely absent from the measured
results of the systems existence. May commentators
contend that while PACER is designed to be a
comprehensive tool in the effort to institute a
transparent society, this central aim is largely
unrealized. The evolution of the PACER system is a
crucial theme when discussing court records. Despite
the above criticism however, one would still
recommend the systems use and advocate for an
extension of such use.
In order
to obtain court records pertaining to an individual
it is necessary to have initial information
regarding which court they appeared before. This
necessitates the person seeking information to
search the court databases of various courts where
the individual in question may have lived, worked,
or spent time in. PACER will offer information from
most courts, but sadly not all information is
available. Therefore one ought to access its tools
as well as requesting information from local
sources. The U.S. Party Case Index (USPCI) should be
consulted if PACER fails to return the require
information. It is a database of cases and acts as a
locator. It can be searched by party name, and will
gather a list of locations and litigants matching
the searches query. This information can then by
given to PACER in order to ascertain further
details. If the USPCI search fails then the next
option would be to search local court databases.
Performing such searches, for an ordinary person,
can be a time consuming and intimidating task. A lot
of skill and knowledge is needed in order to
understand, and discern between, the various avenues
and options open to one. This is where professional
services have found their niche. However it is not
at all beyond the bounds of reasonability to conduct
such searches oneself. And in my opinion searching
ones' self will result in better information in the
long run. |
Offense Description
