Final meet of privacy panel

A committee charged with balancing the openness of court records with the privacy rights of individuals is close to wrapping up its two-year task but will meet one more time to address a couple of particularly tricky issues:

• How to deal with requests for mass (or "aggregate") records submitted by the media or other entities, such as marketing firms.

• How to handle appeals on records that could potentially kept confidential.

The Committee on Privacy and Public Court Records had planned to finish its report Wednesday but will meet again Sept. 13.

The committee will present its report to the Utah Judicial Council on Oct. 25.

During a lengthy meeting, committee members reviewed a draft of report it plans to submit to the council and decided to ask staff attorney Tim Shea to add revisions.

A key sticking point for some committee members is the idea of someone asking for mass records, such as names of repeat DUI offenders statewide. Among other things, they contend individual privacy could be compromised, media requests might not necessarily serve the public's interest and commercial firms could use these records for marketing purposes.

But other committee members argue that greater openness in these records upholds the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, reinforces public confidence in the court system and makes information that legitimately should be public available to those who would seek it.

The committee also debated whether it should publish its next, revised draft of the report on the state court Web site. The group eventually voted to publish, unless some Judicial Council rule prohibits it. Recently an early draft was leaked to the media, which was disconcerting to some members.

"It's very troubling to me that we do not allow sunshine on this," said committee member Joel Campbell, a journalism professor at Brigham Young University. "When will the public have a chance to respond? There's no opportunity for change or revision."

However, 3rd District Judge Noel Frank said the committee should submit a final report to the Judicial Council, which then can make decisions about revising and publicizing the document. "The procedure is not flawed," Noel said. "It's foolish to revise a draft until it's our recommendation."

The committee also debated whether the possibility of a sanction such as contempt of court could be imposed on someone who legally obtained a private record and disseminated information in it.

"I don't think we can restrict someone who lawfully comes into possession of a non-public record," said committee member Randy Dryer. "Maybe we need to restrict it to governmental employees or agencies. I think it's legitimate to be crystal clear that court personnel are not to release non-public records."

---

E-mail: lindat@desnews.com