Does anyone have concerns about the opinion that JP records are no longer subject to public inspection following SB 436?

The bill amended Govt Code 27.004 to remove the language "inspection of any interested party at reasonable times" and replace it with "subject to the public access requirements prescribed by Rule 12, Rules of Judicial Administration."

JP records were already exempt from the Public Information Act and now there is a judicial ethics opinion that Rule 12 does not apply to files of cases pending in JP Court. The Texas Justice Courts Training Center is suggesting in a letter that are offering to JP's that the records are no longer accessible to the public.

http://www.tjctc.org/#Rule12

Anybody else have concerns about that advice? Our JP's are getting barraged by the Defensive Driving industry, but it seems the files would have to be open to the public.

I share the concern. I've looked at the "Judicial Desk Book" that the TX Justice Court Training center referred to, and I don't see anything in it that says that JP records are not to be disclosed. There is reference to a per curiam opinion by administrative judges regarding a request of a municipal court to see the list of names of violaters who have signed up to take defensive driving. The excerpt from that opinion, denying disclosure of such records, states that court records that are not judicial records subject to Rule 12 are not disclosable. But it also says that case records are not subject to the PIA and are also not subject to Rule 12!!! That doesn't make sense to me, folks. I think someone there at the Training Center needs to read all of that again.

The problem is that Judicial Rule of Administration Rule 12 (relating to 'judicial records', which are records of a court EXCEPT those having to do with a court's adjudicative function, so not 'case' records, for example) [Find Rule 12 at ]http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/rules/RJA/index.htm] and the Public Information Act (relating to most executive and legislative agency records) [Find the PIA at Ch 552, ]http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/gv.toc.htm] are not the entire universe of laws relating to public access. Yet, there are a lot of people who think that if a member of the public can't show a statute that says they specifically have a right to know what government is doing, then it is none of their business. This strange attitude persists even though there is a common law right of access to certain types of governmental records, the basic who/what/where/when/how of what government does. And, doesn't that make sense in a country like ours (or, in a country that we aspire to?) Exceptions to disclosure should and do exist, of course, when there is or needs to be a limited exception such as a statutory protection or another legitimate right (privacy rights of an individual in certain situations, national security interests, increasingly disclosure should/will also be limited where there exists the probability of ID theft, retaliation, or other criminal activity against those named in the records, and a few other similar limited exceptions).

There remain some governmental officials who take the position that the government's records belong to 'them' -- 'my records', say these public servants. Get a grip, people. Didn't you all run on the platform that you would put the interests of the public first? What HAPPENED when you raised your hand and took the oath? The presumption is and should be that public records, or at least enough basic information so that the public can keep tabs on the government's activities, belong to the people, and public servants are cast as the protector of them for the people. The people have access, except where release is contrary to a limited protected right, where the release would be contrary to the proper running of the government, and/or where the information really does not have any governmental information in it. Example -- how much is deducted from a particular employee's check to pay their car loan would not be 'governmental' information (no legitimate public right to know that stuff), but their salary (paid by tax dollars) would be.

Now, granted, some people making requests for what should be easy to release information are real butt-heads (can I say that on a family channel?) and seem to go out of their way to be rude, obnoxious idiots to any government worker trying to figure out what they should do, often with an antiquated record keeping system that is not computer friendly. They do the b-h thing to these entry level clerical folks and all the way on up, even in the face of those genuinely trying to help. Those folks (b-h's) could get a clue and realize that most of the rank and file, front line government employees do the job they do because they truly like serving the public and believe that the government is supposed to be run in a public-friendly way. Fortunately, the b-h's are the exception, not the rule, but then again the rude government employee is the exception, not the rule, and just see where a handful of sourpusses have gotten the rest of government workers in the nice-reputation game.

B-h's are a whole 'nother problem from those few who are obviously trying to get the information to commit crimes, harass individuals, or throw a wrench into a legitimate government function, including those who try to get sensitive criminal warrant information before the bad guys and gals are apprehended, potentially making capture of the criminal more difficult. But, in the run-of-the-mill citizen watchdog situation, these issues are not present.

Relax a little bit, folks, and let the public who pays your salary know what the heck you are up to. Just because they can't point out a specific statute that says they can have a particular record does not mean it should be stamped 'top secret'.

Or at least that is how it looks from here.

Uuuh. What was the question again?

In several places across the state, there are JP's who won't let the public look at the court files. Gripes me out (just a little!).

Some of them want to think that this legislation permits them to withhold routine court case files from the public. I humbly believe they are mistaken.