One of the hottest issues discussed in providing electronic public access is the cost of technology - who’s going to pay for it? On one hand, taxpayers already pay for the courts through taxes and argue that court records should be free to the public. On the other hand, there is an additional cost of providing those records electronically to users outside the courthouse. As the public continues to press for remote access to court records, budget-conscious government agencies are finding it hard to create these new services without additional revenue. 

While it may seem like a simple solution to provide the same system data to the public as the courthouse employees, there are security concerns and privacy concerns that do not often surface when discussing these issues. For example, online access often requires that data be mirrored or duplicated for electronic perusal by the public. Separate databases and firewalls are often created for security and privacy protection. The public does not gain access to the same system that court employees use in their daily work. Privacy information is often edited or deleted before making  government collected information a public record. On older database systems, this editing is often done manually. Because of these issues, some courts have sought outside help in public/private partnerships. 

Some governmental agencies are treating electronic public access to public data as a revenue producer. The issue is whether users should be charged by public agencies to access public data they collect in their official capacities even if there is only a minimal cost to provide this digital public information to the users. There are courts in the country that look at this as a potential profit center – another means to increase their slim budgets. 

For example, it is federal court policy (PACER) to charge 60 cents a minute to access electronic court docketing databases that have been created during the normal course of business.  Some states permit charges of up to $2 per minute for the use of a court database. 

Follow the flow: when a public citizen comes to the courthouse to check on a file, see a document, or ask a question, that person is not charged a user fee. When the public phones the clerk’s office to check on a court case, the clerk does not charge a user fee to answer the question. These services are provided through the agency’s annual tax budget. 

So, the question becomes, if you provide the same information electronically, should you charge a special “technology” fee? When the public accesses the data electronically, they are not taking any human resources away from their tasks. In other words, the public no longer goes to the courthouse to ask the clerk a question or phones the court. Therefore, it is conceivable that the staff in the clerk’s office is now more productive or free to work on other tasks. 

Electronic Access Fees
Generally, electronic access fees fall into several categories:

• those designed to recover the direct costs of providing access by a court or government operated system
• those designed to recover the indirect cost by a court or government operated system
• those designed to generate a profit for private technology providers and revenue for the government.

The argument may boundary at the counter terminal. For example, information provided at the public access terminal may be considered “basic” information. Providing that information to a remote location and adding additional features or services may be considered “enhanced” information. It is up to the courts to determine what information is “basic” and what information is “enhanced.”

There is no “right” answer to Free or Fee. It will be determined by the individual courts and their constituency. If courts are having a problem with this issue, then one alternative is to utilize the services of a 3rd party provider - there is typically no cost to the court.