I know what you’ve been convicted of
Now, thanks to the Judiciary, so can everyone else. As promised by Representative Mike Lawlor months ago, the criminal disposition database is now online. You can search by last name and birth year, courthouse, docket number. This covers criminal and motor vehicle cases.
I haven’t decided whether to link to it. But take a look at the amount of information available. Let’s take Russell Peeler, for example:
As you can see. It gives you his name, his lawyer’s name, his lawyer’s juris number (state bar number), his year of birth, his arrest date, the arresting agency, the sentencing date, and then a lot of information about the offenses of conviction, including the sentence, what he pled to initially, the date of the offense, the date of the verdict.
This isn’t just serious felonies. This is everything. Infractions, motor vehicle violations, tickets, DUI, the pot that you were caught with when you were 16. Everything.
Everyone is going to have access to this information. Potential employers, current employers, girlfriends, wives, boyfriends, husbands, parents and yes, nosy co-workers and bloggers.
I believe this information should be freely available, but only to those that need it and provide a valid reason for needing to know this.
The commenter who informed me of the link seemed concerned about privacy issues. I don’t know if this would be an invasion of privacy – it is, after all, public information, but I think the potential for misuse exists. Certainly we’ve seen that happen with the sex offender registry.
What do you folks think? Good idea? Bad? Doesn’t matter? Are you on there?
| Print article | This entry was posted by Gideon on February 2, 2008 at 12:49 pm, and is filed under ct legal news, ct state law. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 4 years ago
I think what troubles me most about these types of databases is that for young offenders who may have only had one brush with the law the data is out there that might lead to a lifetime of discrimination. For example, PA has one tat gives you everything back 25+ years on felony & most misdemeanor offenses, and traffic offenses back 8 years.
Rather than use a model like PA’s perhaps a system can be created that meets both privacy interests and the public’s right to know. For the most serious felonies (1st degree offenses / A felonies or whatever they are in a given jurisdiction) records should be around forever, but for relatively minor offenses (misdemeanors & low grade felonies) perhaps they should be removed from the databases after seven to ten years (just like your credit report).
about 4 years ago
Hey Gideon. Thanks for blogging about the letter I sent you. I think that this inquiry link by the Judicial Branch is cool (I spent hours typing in everyones’ names from school professors, to my doctor, state officials, and all my friends)…
BUT
…I think that this violates the right to privacy. Yes, convictions are public information. Yes, when you get a job you sign a statement letting the company know if you’ve ever committed a crime. I’m with Karl: Discrimination.
How about a person applying for a job with an ethnic-sounding name. Or a person who hands in a job application who is black (or whatever color that we want to discriminate against). The first thing the employer is going to do is run the Judicial Branch query on the applicant’s history. Bam! Reason to not interview the person or throw the application away. Not judge the person on skills, abilities, or rehabilitative efforts (if an ex-con).
Or, housing. Before, it was only a credit check. Now, a lanlord can surreptitiously query you and see if you have non-criminal offenses which would make a bad tenant:
22-364(a) Permit Dog To Roam At Large
(My friend’s MOM is on there for this one!)
53a-181a Creating A Public Disturbance
(That’s my hidden past
)
about 4 years ago
Forgot to finish…
So now everyone’s minor offenses are on display for the world to see.
Those going back to 01/01/2000 are on there, as my older infractions are not listed.
I’m a law hobbyist so correct me if I’m wrong:
The Supreme Court construed several of the amendments in the Bill of Rights to imply a right to privacy. In Griswold v. Connecticut no less…
The Courts must weigh a person’s right to privacy against the benefit to the public in releasing such information in a way it can be aggregated to create a profile on a person or people. Hell, a kid could write a script that queries everyone’s name on the Judicial Branch list and links it with phone book data and Myspace info and then anyone can compile a dossier on everyone in the State !!!
The Supreme Court found that the benefit to the public outweighs the right to privacy in sex offender notification laws… But this is bringing us down the proverbial slippery slope…
Mark in Jersey
about 4 years ago
I’m not quite sure what the mechanism should be to make this information available, but I’d think that a formal request should be required and records maintained on who has requested and received this kind of information.
There’s no practical reason why a person should be able to anonymously surf through background information on anybody and everybody they know.
about 4 years ago
One of the sadder aspects of the PA directory is that it makes several of my family members look like complete traffic scofflaws (incl. unpaid parking tickets). The other problem is that people with common names (even those that people don’t think are that common) can’t be readily differentiated without knowing DOBs on the PA database. It is truly sad.
about 4 years ago
Privacy means many things. That something is “public” does not mean that someone doesn’t have a privacy interest in it not being disseminated, and I cannot resist this, the addresses of complaining witnesses.
All kidding aside, stuff like this can be really counterproductive. In general, we want people to be as productive as they can be–it creates a better society. Public dissemination of information about stale and minor convictions hurts real people and their families. So why do it? Yeah, if some guy is a rapist, well, maybe we get to find out about it, but copping a dime bag? This just seems cruel to me.
about 4 years ago
One positive: You never again have to be caught knowing nothing about your client’s criminal history at initial appearance/arraignment bond arguments. It’s so frustrating when the gov’t has an NCIC on your client and you’ve got nothing.
But I agree w/SPO and Lisa Kennedy — there’s no good reason for this kind of info to be so easily accessible. Public, yes, but by request in writing or in person, not by just clicking on a website and hitting a search button. People in this country are paranoid about crime (thank you, Republican party, for the decades of fearmongering!); this will only encourage needless discrimination against people who have (for the most part) already paid the debt our democratic process of lawmaking has deemed fair for whatever it is they did in the past.
about 4 years ago
I predict a lawsuit. For example, EVERYONE on the list has an “Arrest Date”. Meaning, the State is committing the tort of libel:
Communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressively stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual
… By publishing the names of people who have only issued a parking ticket, as having a history of arrest:
Docket No: A22M-MI01-3745115-S
Original Arresting Agency: MILFORD POLICE
Original Arrest Date: 1/2/2001
Statute—Description——————Type———— Verdict
14-251—Improper Parking— Infraction— Guilty
So it appears you’re arrested for a parking ticket…
So when your job application asks “Have you ever been arrested”, do you say “Yes”?
about 4 years ago
I am a liberal who believes in strong civil liberties, however I don’t see how this is a violation of privacy.
I am also a person who believes strongly in open government.
This is public information, it’s not private information.
You should not have to pay for public information. You should not have to run through hoops to get public information.
Making public information public isn’t an invasion of privacy rights.
about 4 years ago
esc, your analysis is far too simplistic. Your social security number is “public information” in that it is maintained by a public entity. So is someone’s FBI file. So is the name of a rape victim and on and on.
Privacy is an amorphous concept and depends on the context (e.g., criminal law, tort law, state con law, e.g., California). The reason for this is that we know that things like stale convictions for scoring a dime bag or something like that can hurt real people. And we have to ask ourselves why we make that information easily accessible. Your post adds little to the conversation.
about 4 years ago
SPO-
Conviction information is already public, so why is this a privacy concern anyways?
My social security number is not classified by the government as “public information.” Conviction information, however, already is.
about 4 years ago
Because “privacy” means different things in different cases–California, for example, would recognize a tort in disclosing to the general public an old conviction–see Melvin v. Reid, 112 Cal. App. 285 (1931). Moreover, “privacy” encompasses a movie star’s entitlement to his or her face.
As for social security numbers, isn’t your statement that it’s not deemed to be “public” kind of a tautology? Is it private because the government says so?
In any event, “privacy” is sort of a catchall phrase for all sorts of interests, one of which is keeping embarassing information out of the hands of the general public or at least making it hard for the general public to get said information. Part of me gets the feeling you are being deliberately obtuse . . . . it’s quite clear why people wouldn’t want this information readily accessible, and your contribution to the conversation is “Well, it’s public already, so there’s no privacy concern.” That doesn’t really advance the ball, now does it?
about 3 years ago
In portland oregon, Joan Wagar and Eric Carlson are in A Murder conspiracy together.
And Clackamas Walmart are acttively helping them by hideing Eric’s employment there from me and my family.
For over A year now Eric Carlson has been going by the name gashel, last name unknown by me, he dyed his hair black, and Walmart agreed to hide his Identity from my daughter, who also worked at that store.
Joan and Eric have friends in Authority protecting Joan and Eric from prosecution.
I have reported this repeatedly to the Authority’s and they are ignoring Joan and Eric’s CONSPIRACY.
I would be more than happy to Testify to this but the Authority’s are covering this up so my testimony would simply dissapear.
My name is Terry Wagar and Im backing up these charges.
Nomatter how many people Joan and Eric poisoned the Authority’s here in portland Oregon refuse to arrest them.
Im making these charges public because of the blatent coverup of these charges.
why is Walmart hideing A BodyDouble?