Supreme Court of Missouri
en banc

In re:
 
(1) Repeal of Administrative Rule 1, consisting of Administrative Rules 1.01 to 1.23 and all guidelines thereto, and in lieu thereof adoption of a new Administrative Rule 1, entitled "State Court Automation," consisting of Administrative Rules 1.01 to 1.12.

(2) Repeal of Administrative Rule 2, consisting of Administrative Rule 2.01, entitled “Record and Dissemination – Data Processing,” and in lieu thereof adoption of a new Administrative Rule 2, entitled “Public Access to Records of the Judicial Department,” consisting of Administrative Rules 2.01 to 2.08.
1.  It is ordered that effective October 1, 1998, Administrative Rule 1 and the guidelines thereto be and the same are hereby repealed and a new Administrative Rule 1 adopted in lieu thereof, to read as follows:
 
1.01 Missouri Court Automation Committee:   Definition

The Missouri court automation committee, established by section 476.055, RSMo, has decision-making authority for all aspects of statewide court automation. This includes policy, technical, financial and other aspects of statewide court automation as funded by the legislatively approved automation fee.

1.02 State Judicial Records Committee:
Recommendations
The state judicial records committee working in conjunction with the Missouri court automation committee may make recommendations to this Court concerning policy issues relating to security, dissemination of information, record keeping, and model forms and procedures.

1.03 Court Automation Central Sites and Communications Links
The office of state courts administrator will operate the court automation central computer sites.  The court automation central sites will serve as the communications link among all court sites and with all regional and statewide non-court systems and national systems.

1.04 Uniform Case Number
All courts shall use the standard case numbering system adopted by the state judicial records committee unless otherwise authorized by exception.

1.05 Uniform Criminal Charge Codes
A uniform set of criminal charge codes adopted by the state judicial records committee shall be utilized on a statewide basis by all courts. A specific charge code is to be assigned to each charge made against an individual.

1.06 Uniform Court Action Codes
A uniform set of court action codes adopted by the state judicial records committee in compliance with statewide court automation policies shall be utilized on a statewide basis by all courts.  A specific set of action codes is to be assigned to each case filed or juvenile referral made.

1.07 Attorney Identification
The statewide court automation systems shall utilize a uniform attorney identification number consistent with the number currently utilized by the clerk of this Court. The use of the code is subject to the restrictions stated in this Administrative Rule 2.

1.08 Data Processing Proposals
Courts that wish to undertake data processing projects must meet the standards adopted by the state judicial records committee and the Missouri court automation committee or submit a plan for approval by the state judicial records committee.  If the proposed project does not conform to the statewide court automation standards, the Missouri court automation committee must review the plan for technical compatibility prior to review by the state judicial records committee.

1.09 Developmental Projects
Courts are encouraged to seek federal and other funds for developmental projects. If these entail data processing projects, they must adhere to Administrative Rule 1.08.

1.10 Control of Automated Systems
Any court automation system, including any pilot project, shall be implemented, operated and maintained in accordance with strict standards for the physical and information security, integrity, and privacy of judicial records in all courts.

To protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the information and the hardware and software systems that handle it, all users and systems connected to the networks supported by the office of state courts administrator must conform to the guidelines provided by that office.

The state courts administrator, upon notice to the presiding judge, maintains the authority to:
(a) restrict or revoke the privileges of any user at any time for just cause;
(b) inspect, copy, remove, or alter any data, program, or other resource that may undermine security; and
(c) take any steps necessary to manage and protect its computer systems.

The office of state courts administrator may withhold service or support to any user, court or division negligently breaching the guidelines for networks and systems supported by the office of state courts administrator.  Minor infractions may be reported to the appropriate appointing authority, and major infractions may result in suspension or revocation of privileges and/or support.  

For the purposes of this Administrative Rule 1.10, “minor infractions” are those actions that are contrary to the guidelines provided by the office of state courts administrator and that cause no significant loss of operational functionality, data integrity or data security.  “Major infractions” are those actions that cause a loss of operational functionality, data integrity or data security that is significant and/or extended in duration or whose impact extends beyond the local court.

Public access to records shall be controlled as specified in Administrative Rule 2.

1.11 Internet/World Wide Web Site Development
The office of state courts administrator, information technology division, will establish and maintain a Missouri judicial presence in the Internet/World Wide Web.

The office of state courts administrator will make available links that will permit all appellate courts and circuit courts in the state to develop and post court-specific information.

Once developed, responsibility for maintaining the accuracy and currency of information will reside with the information owner, designated knowledge manager, or appropriate local authority, as defined by policy of the office of state courts administrator.

Internet/Web site development accomplished using applications supplied and supported by the office of state courts administrator shall follow approved guidelines of that office for structure and management.

1.12 Internet/World Wide Web Site Content
Content material shall not violate accepted standards of judicial and ethical conduct. When determining content, the presiding judge will be responsible for determining and approving the information that will be connected to and from the Missouri circuit courts page. 

Content that represents data extracted, manipulated, computed or otherwise derived from information collected as a result of case management or other automated court processing systems will additionally be reviewed by the state judicial records committee.

Reasonable efforts will be made to ensure that up-to-date information is presented on judicial Internet/Web locations.

The office of state courts administrator, information technology division, will coordinate additions to and changes in the Missouri judicial home page structure and operation.

2.  It is ordered that effective October 1, 1998, Administrative Rule 2 be and the same is hereby repealed and a new Administrative Rule 2 adopted in lieu thereof, to read as follows:


2.01 Scope of Rule
This Administrative Rule 2 governs public access to the records of the judicial department of Missouri.  Litigants or their attorneys who are involved in a case, or persons authorized by the court, shall have the same access to individual case records as the public does under this Administrative Rule 2 and may have additional access as authorized by law or court order.

2.02   General Policy
Records of all courts are presumed to be open to any member of the public for purposes of inspection or copying during the regular business hours of the court having custody of the records.  This policy does not apply to records that are confidential pursuant to statute, court rules or court order; judicial or judicial staff work product; memoranda or drafts; or appellate judicial case assignments.

Records, information and services shall be provided at a time and in a manner that does not interfere with the regular business of the courts.

This Administrative Rule 2 imposes no obligation upon the judiciary to create a data element, make a data element available electronically, or produce non-standard reports when it is not technologically or economically feasible to do so.

2.03 Definitions
As used in this Administrative Rule 2, the following terms mean:
(a) “administrative records”, all records, including reports and correspondence, pertaining to the administration of the courts;
(b) “case records”, all records relating to a specific case or controversy;
(c) “custodian of records”, the person designated by the appointing authority as responsible for the safekeeping of any records held in the clerk’s office;
(d) “Data element”, information contained in a field in the computer data base;
(e) “Electronic records”, computerized records, whether created by data entry, electronic filing, or digital imaging.  The term does not include records on microfiche, paper, or any other medium;
(f) “Person”, any individual, nonprofit or profit corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship, or other type of business organization;
(g) “Record”, information produced or available to the court regardless of physical form or storage medium used;
(h) “Summary data”, statistical records from which all information that could identify a particular person has been removed.

2.04 Access to Case Records
Public records from which a person can be identified will be made available upon request only by inquiry of a single case or by accessing any public indexes.  Electronic public indexes will be available by:
(a) case number;
(b) file date;
(c) party name;
(d) calendar date.


An index may contain the above elements plus case title, case type and status.
Electronic records that are public and from which a person can be identified will include only the following data elements, if not confidential by statute or rule:
Civil cases
(a) attorneys’ addresses;
(b) attorneys’ names;
(c) calendar dates;
(d) case number;
(e) case type;
(f) date of birth;
(g) disposition type;
(h) docket entries;
(i) file date;
(j) trial judge currently assigned;
(k) trial judge at disposition;
(l) judgment or appellate decision;
(m) judgment or appellate mandate date;
(n) party address;
(o) party name and type;
(p) satisfaction of judgment date.

Criminal Cases
(a) appellate mandate date;
(b) appellate opinion;
(c) attorneys’ addresses;
(d) attorneys’ names;
(e) bail amount;
(f) calendar dates;
(g) case number;
(h) case type;
(i) charges;
(j) date of birth;
(k) defendant address;
(l) defendant name;
(m) disposition type;
(n) docket entries;
(o) file date;
(p) finding and finding date;
(q) judgment and judgment date;
(r) sentence and sentence date;
(s) trial judge currently assigned;
(t) trial judge at disposition;
(u) law enforcement agency;
(v) offense tracking number;
(w) violation code, date and description.

2.05 Access to Administrative Records
Administrative records are generally considered to be open to the public.  Exceptions include personnel records and management reports prepared for internal use.

If an administrative report used within the judiciary is prepared from or contains case management data elements, the report shall be made available only if:
(a) all of the data elements in the report would have been made available under this Administrative Rule 2; and
(b) the report is of summary data; or
(c) the state judicial records committee has classified the report as a public record.

2.06 Access Procedures
A custodian of records shall be named for each clerk’s office.  The custodian of records is responsible for:
(a) developing and making available to the public the procedures that are to be followed to obtain access to electronic and paper records;
(b) developing procedures to ensure that confidential records are protected from disclosure to the public;
(c) providing appropriate training to court staff concerning the provisions of this Administrative Rule 2; and
(d) approving or rejecting requests for access to records.

Requests for access may be submitted orally or in writing, as determined by the custodian of records.  The requesting person shall not be required to disclose the purpose of the request.

The custodian of records shall respond to the request as promptly as practical.

Denials of access requests shall be in writing if desired by the requesting person.

2.07 Access Denial Review
The state judicial records committee, upon receipt of a written request, may review any request for access to information that has been denied.

The request will be reviewed at the next regular meeting of the committee.  The requesting person and the custodian of records shall be notified in writing of the committee’s decision as soon as possible after a determination has been made.

2.08 Fees

Reasonable fees may be charged for services provided.

3.  It is ordered that notice of this order be published in the Journal of The Missouri Bar.

4.  It is ordered that this order be published in the South Western Reporter.

5.  The state courts administrator shall provide copies of this order to every appellate chief judge, each presiding circuit judge and circuit clerk, and such other persons the administrator deems appropriate.

Day – to – Day

_________________________
DUANE BENTON
Chief Justice