Wisconsin residents who have been acquitted of crimes may not have to worry about employers having access to their criminal records, if a new rule debated by the state Supreme Court Monday goes into effect.

The justices met to review a rule change that would allow judges to erase criminal charges from online database records if the charges are dropped or dismissed.

The Wisconsin State Bar submitted the petition to change the rule on the grounds online records can be misunderstood or used to discriminate against individuals whose charges were ultimately dropped.

Currently, employers, landlords, license-providers and other people in positions of authority can access online court records of individuals who have been charged with crimes, even if they were later acquitted of the crimes.

Wisconsin’s online criminal database CCAP does indicate if charges were dropped or dismissed.

Opponents argue the new rule interferes with the right of Wisconsin citizens to know exactly what happens in their court system.

“They have a right to know when a person was charged of a crime, brought into court and when a decision was made,” said Bill Leuders, president of Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council.

The rule change could also allow the police to cover up their mistakes since it would be impossible for the public to find out if someone has been charged unfairly or unjustly because the record was erased, Leuders said.

Leuders added Wisconsin law prohibits discrimination against job applicants based on their criminal record if the charges are unrelated to the position for which they are applying.

Even with a rule change, the issue of discrimination against individuals with criminal records, even if the charges were dropped, may be unavoidable, Lueders said.

Discrimination aside, Mike McCabe, executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, sees the ruling as a threat to the Wisconsin history of keeping public records available to citizens.

“I do not think there is any question that [Wisconsin] has had a very rich tradition of keeping open records,” McCabe said.

Despite a history of open records, there has also been erosion in the spirit of these kinds of open records laws In Wisconsin recently, and they are not as effective as they once were, McCabe added.

Any move to diminish the public’s access to public records is a step in the wrong direction on the part of the courts, McCabe said.

Jay Heck, executive director of Common Cause in Wisconsin, said while discrimination in cases of acquitted or dismissed crimes might be an issue, it is always better to have more information than less.

“I understand that there may be certain individuals who are adversely affected and who think it is unfair,” Heck said. “But I don’t think the public interest is served well by just having these records erased.”

The Supreme Court needs to come up with a solution that falls short of erasing records but addresses the concerns of using records unfairly, Heck added.