H -°, L 6° | Tomorrow: 
H 18°, L 6°
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.
IP hash: 150d3edd
True! True! True! Great, articulate, well written article. Thanks Jaimie.
IP hash: a4a6e4cf
“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” You are a nut job! So in addition to finding out if I have ever gotten an underage drinking ticket or urinated in public, I assume you’ll want to know how much money I make, my family’s medical records to make sure we don’t have any genetic diseases, and my elementary spelling grades right? You are a paranoid crazy chick who probably makes her boyfriends constantly check-in assuming you don’t scare them all off right away.
IP hash: a5a11f96
Anonymous…………..perhaps you have something to hide? CCAP is a place to find out if you are safe from possible predators, drunk drivers, etc. I, personally would want to know that stuff before going out with someone. All the guys I have ever dated, never, ever minded if I checked them out of CCAP and I didn’t care if they checked me out. You’re being ridiculous and facetious thinking anyone wants to find out your elementary school grades. That is not what CCAP is for.
IP hash: a5a11f96
You lose your right to privacy when you commit a crime. Doesn’t matter if it’s a misdimeanor or a felony. I wouldn’t want to ride in the car with someone who’s had 3 DUI’s, nor would I even be interested in knowing someone who is a chronic shoplifter or has been divorced 10 times. I won’t even go down the road of child pornography or worse. It shouldn’t cost taxpayers or anyone else $10 to view information on these people, and especially if the information is not even always complete.
IP hash: 228bc578
there is no doubt that it is fun to finding out about your shoplifting neighbors and the nieces and nephews picked up for underage drinking but if these documents were still paper and in the court house you would likely have to sign out for the records. the cost is not so important but who is looking at the information is. the easiest way for the government to get the source of the inquiry is to require them to pay a small fee. this information is used by employers, banks, etc and those with a record need the feedback about why they aren’t getting jobs, loans, etc.
IP hash: 69eb9640
CCAP should be redacted. It basically encourages people to violate state law in that it is illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of arrest or conviction record. Particularly with the former, the only way people can find out this information and then pretend they didn’t is with free CCAP.
If someone actually has to file a paid request to the Wisconsin DOJ, there’s a record of that. Records can be a little embarassing when you get sued, particularly with the new Wisconsin law on employment damages where you can eat major punitive damages for employment discrimination. Employers know that, and so they all use free CCAP.
Sorry, but this has nothing to do with it being a convenient date screener for hook-up champs.
IP hash: a5a11f96
While I do think Vic makes some good points, it still begs the question, why should it only be available by “employers, banks, etc.”, and not regular people checking to make sure they’re not going to be dating a guy with a history of domestic violence or disorderly conduct - or vice versa, a guy ending up dating someone who has 10 liens against them and hasn’t paid the US Government taxes in over 5 years. See?
IP hash: a5a11f96
Perhaps it is discriminatory for employers to not hire people based on what they find on “free CCAP”, but dating people (and finding out if they’re safe and/or decent; which in my opinion is a basic right) is not discrimination by law if they choose NOT to date someone based on what they find on CCAP.
IP hash: 69eb9640
@ 1:03
I don’t think it would be a problem if regular citizens could use free CCAP and employers and banks had to use the state database. The problem is that this would be completely unenforcable. Banks and employers are made up of regular citizens, after all.
IP hash: a5a11f96
Very true. It would be unenforceable. I don’t know for sure what the “right” solution here is, but like I have said all alone, in my opinion, you have lost your right to privacy when you choose to commit a crime of any kind.
IP hash: 28de4702
As others have said, if you don’t like this bill, you can lay the blame squarely on abusive labor and lending practices. Wisconsin employers basically don’t like that the Legislature included criminal history in the employment discrimination law. Ergo, they quietly flout it. Never mind that it already allows for refusing to hire someone for something where there’s a substantial relationship to the job.
They’re unquestionably the biggest abusers of CCAP.
The other thing I would take issue with is the contention that crimes carry permanent consequences. This is not true. People of course have freedom of association - you don’t have to date any one - but lifetime housing, lending or employment discrimination are not part of the sentence imposed by the state. When the state wants to impose certain disabilities (sex offender registration, gun prohibition for felons), they do so.
There’s no law giving society a vote to continue to punish someone beyond their sentence. In Wisconsin, we have a specific negative law on the subject. I’d argue there are good public policy reasons for the law. If you want someone to continue to be a criminal, the best way to do it is to give them no legitimate options. Since we don’t have penal colonies or exile anymore, it’s simply not practical to give people lifetime scarlet letters.
But that’s all arguing for the law. We already have it, so that’s moot. The issue behind this bill is whether or not CCAP is abused to frustrate the legislature’s intent. There’s no question it is. I don’t think paying for it is really the right answer; the bigger problem is that it’s anonymous.
I would suggest keeping it free but requiring a valid ID to log in and run a search. That would keep track of who is searching for what and deal with unlawful discrimination issues. $10 or whatever it is isn’t going to deter someone who is running background checks covertly to avoid hundreds of thousands of dollars in punitive liability.
IP hash: a5a11f96
Could just anyone get a valid ID in your opinion?
IP hash: dcb9c676
This article certainly undercuts its own argument, to keep CCAP free, by providing a good example of why people should actually pay for other people’s criminal record. As it is now many people just treat criminal records like facebook. Well like a facebook profile with only the incriminating/highly inebriated/delete immediately photos. Really, the majority of people using the system are using it out of spite or just to pull up embarassing information (a point the author uses as support for the free system!), not to make an informed decision about potential mates. People are getting heckled for divorce proceedings, speeding tickets, or past debt. That is not what the system is designed for. Not many people want to live in a glass house.
IP hash: eec5f5f4
As if anyone would dare date you, you yourself are just another victim, “The defendant Jaimie Chapman was found guilty of the following charge(s) in this case.* Vehicle Operator Fail/Wear Seat Belt.” This isn’t proof that you are same person reported, so it could be false, but just to be safe I wouldn’t step within 5 feet of you. Someone who doesn’t wear a seatbelt?? disgusting and irresponsible, I can’t imagine dating them.
I guess I am biased from a past experience though, my uncle searched my name and found the following whoppers:
Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. Burglary-Building or Dwelling, a class F felony Possession of THC, an unclassified misdemeanor Possess Drug Paraphernalia, an unclassified misdemeanor
He immediately reported the find to my parents who flipped out until I showed them the online free open records and that the birthdate of the reports was actually a couple of days after mine. Now I have to show girl’s my birthdate before I can take them out for coffee? It sounds like you use this system enough to get $10 worth, why are you bringing this up? Is your life not worth $10?