Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Journalists urge repeal of remote‑access ban as Senate Judiciary considers electronic criminal records
Loading...
Summary
Witnesses and legislative counsel told the Senate Judiciary that H937 removes a long-standing prohibition on electronic dissemination of criminal records; media representatives said remote access is essential for small newsrooms and public oversight, while members raised questions about rulemaking, fees and privacy safeguards.
Legislative counsel and a coalition of journalists told the Senate Judiciary on April 17 that H937 would remove Vermont’s statutory prohibition on remote electronic dissemination of criminal case records and direct the courts to create procedures for Internet access.
"They eliminated the prohibition on, electronic dissemination of criminal case records," Michelle, the House Office of Legislative Council, said while describing Section 4 of the bill. She told the committee the change reflects technological shifts since the statute’s original adoption and that court rules will set procedures for what material is available and how the public accesses it.
Kristen Fountain, coordinator of the Vermont Journalism Coalition, testified in support of removing the ban, saying remote access matters to small newsrooms and to public scrutiny of the courts. "My name is Kristen Fountain. I'm, the coordinator of the Vermont Journalism Coalition," she said, and argued that forcing reporters to travel to county courthouses to view records imposes practical barriers on timely coverage.
Fountain pointed to national academic work and First Amendment clinics that concluded the prohibition is out of step with modern practice and raises constitutional questions as technology advanced. She told the committee that digital access speeds reporting and helps combat misinformation, because journalists can check filings and records quickly rather than relying on hearsay.
Committee members sought details about how the courts would implement remote access, including whether users would pay fees for copies, how confidential material would be protected, and what materials would remain restricted. Counsel said those procedural details will be resolved in court rules and acknowledged that the court’s access rules will define the scope of publicly available material.
The committee did not vote on the change; counsel and stakeholders were asked to refine implementation language and coordinate with court administrators so the procedure and any fee structure can be clear before the committee takes final action.
