I have to admit I have always done an online search for any guy who has given me his number. In fact, most girls I know have also done this. No, it’s not creepy; it’s a precaution. Some just Google the guy’s name and generally come up with absolutely irrelevant information. Others, including myself, have used the Wisconsin Circuit Court Access website (wcca.wicourts.gov).
The WCCA website gives citizens access to all public records from Wisconsin circuit courts. By typing in a person’s name and birth date, you can automatically see whether they have any past or pending court cases. Can you say “deal breaker?”
Unfortunately for those of us investigating our potential lovers or even our neighbors, state Rep. Marlin Schneider, D-Wisconsin Rapids, has proposed a bill to prevent these records from being freely accessible to the public. The bill proposes charging people $10 per year to access the records. Schneider is determined to keep pending cases off the circuit court website altogether. Furthermore, WCCA would only be permitted to archive cases that resulted in conviction or findings of liability. While judges, police, attorneys and journalists would have free access, the rest of us would lack complete information.
Limiting the kinds of cases reported in the Consolidated Court Automation Programs could severely hinder the documentation of a person’s criminal offenses. Often times, misdemeanors are not completely followed through until a conviction is made. Such “minor” offenses as public intoxication, disorderly conduct, vandalism and drug possession are often cases that are “dropped” formally, with the violator being issued a fine. Currently these types of cases are presented in CCAP, but if this bill passes, they would be hidden from the public record — even to those of us forking over the $10 per year.
The Internet is supposed to open up our lives to a never-ending world of information. This includes the freedom to inherit a tiny glimpse into the lives of those surrounding us, and this bill would compromise this freedom. If the guy I like is involved in multiple criminal cases — or even one — I want to know that pertinent information before I traipse around town with him and before he takes me back to his place. A girl has the right to know. Any person has the right to know.
Concerns about privacy make a poor case for why this bill should pass. Just as the public has the right to know if there are sexual offenders living near them (through the National Sex Offender Registry at www.familywatchdog.us), we have the right to know about all other types of criminals living near or courting us. This is not to say that sexual assault is equal to spray-painting a sidewalk, but both are crimes and the public deserves knowledge of those who offend. Sadly, not everyone reveals that information in the same way that they reveal their bodies for the ladies. This is why it is so important to have access to these types of records.
Schneider’s bill notwithstanding, access to these records is already threatened by a judge’s right to “seal” a case. An example of a legitimately sealed case would be one in which someone is wrongfully accused, maybe because of identity theft. A judge, however, has the right to seal any case he or she desires.
Examples may abound of how this discretion is abused: For example, in October 2008, a state inmate and a prison guard were both charged following an alleged prison fight. Both saw their charges dismissed, but only the guard’s charge was sealed; the prisoner’s remained on the website. The reason for this “seal” on the guard’s record? The guard’s reputation was at stake. This reason alone hardly seems proficient in explaining why the record would be sealed. It seems as if unfair treatment was dealt out in this case.
This instance makes me wonder if similar discrimination is occurring with other types of cases. If so, the public is already being misled. Schneider’s proposed bill would only mislead people further by completely and permanently constricting a good portion of criminal cases from public access while making people pay for the information they can access. Chipping away at the content of the website might make its existence more and more unimportant.
Many women do find this site to be useful. This is not to say that anyone should abandon their right to ask. Coming right out and questioning the criminal background of a partner is an important responsibility. Unfortunately, some situations are built to be embarrassing and this might just be one of them. When this happens, CCAP is there.
Schneider’s bill will most likely be completely dismissed, but the notion that he believes this kind of restriction is either necessary or appropriate is out of line. Every public citizen — not just women — have a right to know what they are getting into with any other public citizen. CCAP is your friend.
Jaimie Chapman ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in journalism.
