Judiciary committee questions public access, fees and attorney rights in proposed court-records changes

A committee member told the Judiciary office on April 1 that members wanted clarity on proposed changes to electronic access for court records in the miscellaneous Judiciary bill on page 937. The discussion centered on whether the bill’s language and the planned new public portal would let members of the general public view criminal records online and how existing printing or certified-copy fees would be applied.

The committee requested details about whether users could email or export records from the public portal and whether that capability would be free. “If everybody is going to have access to it from their desktop at home or at their office, that would also include the attorneys who currently have access to it,” the committee member said, summarizing staff’s explanation of how platform access could shift as records move off older systems.

Staff explained the current public portal does not have an email-or-export function but said an upgrade is planned. They said electronic access itself would not carry a fee; printing at courthouse terminals and certified-copy services would continue to have charges. Staff said certified copies can cost substantially more than per-page print fees and agreed to provide the committee exact revenue figures from those fees.

Members expressed concern at language that, as written, appears to remove an express bar on internet access to criminal records. The bill text was read as providing broader access; staff clarified that attorneys currently retain access and that platform changes have an effective date of July 1, 2027. A committee member urged caution about unintended changes and noted the media and other stakeholders would be engaged by a planned subcommittee.

The Judiciary staff told the committee a public-access-to-court-records subcommittee would be set up after passage so stakeholders can work through rules for the new system. The committee asked staff to return with precise figures on fees and a timeline for the portal upgrade. The committee deferred final decisions pending follow-up from Judiciary staff and the subcommittee.