Snarlin’ Marlin Lies About CCAP Complaints
Rep. Marlin Schneider, D-Wisconsin Rapids, wants to restrict the popular service, known as CCAP, to only records of people who have been convicted of crimes, not those that are only pending or have been dismissed or ended in acquittals.. He said he sought the changes because hundreds of people had told him tales of how information from CCAP prevented them from renting homes or getting jobs.
But Schneider fessed up after the Associated Press requested copies of all complaints he had received about CCAP. The total, over four years, was 59—and only 22 were from people who had had criminal charges dismissed.
I was one of those 22. I had to go to court about 10 years ago over a false charge made by an angry ex-wife and was found not guilty. I contacted Snarlin’ Marlin and urged him to continue trying to restrict access to CCAP, at least to those of us who are paying the taxes to create and maintain the database.
I had a credit card hijacked by individuals in Korea who had used CCAP and other resources to contact my ex, pretending to be a credit rating agency. By the time they got done talking to her they had my mother’s maiden name and numerous details about me, right down to my cat’s name. Thank God the credit card company shut down the card when they saw the address change and other suspicious activity.
Why in the name of all that is sacred are we Wisconsinites maintaining a database of highly personal information so people in China, Russia and North Korea can find out where we live, when we were divorced, what our dates of birth are, and many other bits of information that can be put together to scam us?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 08, 2010 at 1530 hrs
Well Duke - they are all public records, the public has a right to access them and the problem you had seemed to stem more from having a stupid or vindictive (or both) ex-wife. The information the Korean folks needed was not on CCAP - it was given to them by your ex.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 08, 2010 at 1552 hrs
That’s really not the story; the story here is that Schneider said his office has received “hundreds of complaints”, when they actually only recieved 59…and of those, 22 had been dismissed.
Liar.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 08, 2010 at 1606 hrs
So what if there are only 22? It’s not the government’s job to maintain such a computerized database at all.
Given the number of things that qualify as a “crime” today, all we are doing is encouraging the charging of people to build a database.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 08, 2010 at 1611 hrs
The real problem with CCAP is that it often contains incomplete, or misleading information, that can lead people to draw conclusions which are inaccurate or completely wrong. Good luck getting it cleaned up, once it’s there. Yes I know from personal experience.
I’m a believer in making public records easier to access than more difficult, but there has to be a balance struck. It may not seem like a big deal, until you’re the one with records that show up in CCAP that can lead people to the completely wrong conclusion about things that show up there.
If employers are going to be relying on them when doing back ground checks ... and others are going to use them in making lending decisions, etc ... the State, its seems to me, has to have an obligation to create a process for citizens to challenge entries. There is no formal process today, and it can be impossible to clean up, particularly if multiple jurisdictions are involved.
Sorry ... I missed the point of the original post too I see. Let me address that too. Marlin probably is lying, and frankly it doesn’t suprise me one bit. The guy is a joke. He does himself and his legitimate causes a great disservice by doing things like lying about the amount of constituent contact he gets on issues like this.
And frankly, it shouldn’t matter how many contact him anyway. The system the way it is currently constructed can lead to innocent people being denied employment, denied credit, and/or having their reputation ruined when inaccurate court record information is readily available on a sight like CCAP. That it can happen today begs for it to be cleaned up. Its the right thing to do weather 50000 people complained or 22 did.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 08, 2010 at 1649 hrs
Perhaps, Marlin Schneider just wants to hide the $63,000 judgment in his own CCAP record:
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 08, 2010 at 1710 hrs
Again, the story is not whether CCAP is a good thing or a bad thing, but rather, the self-proclaimed Dean of the State Assembly thinking it’s okay to use hyperbole to make his argument.
Why not just say “my office has received a bazillion complaints” and be done with it? He’s a buffoon.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 08, 2010 at 1725 hrs
CCAP is an incredibly valuable resource for employers and landlords (I am both). The one in a thousand times I incorrectly screen someone for “inaccurate court recording” or “misleading information” is worth the thousands of dollars I could be out in back rent, small claims fees, or nuisance citations.
I’m sorry for those who have changed their life or feel that their name brings up “misleading information”, but I guess that is why there is a section on most applications asking you to be upfront about your criminal history…...
If there is genuinely something incorrectly reported on there, may I suggest you contact the database administrators or a judge to have the information amended, rather than calling a scumbag legislator to bitch that CCAP reveals too much of your personal (although public record) information.
I would agree with BV, except that it is less expensive to maintain a single online database than it is to maintain a paper database in each county of the state.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 08, 2010 at 1839 hrs
Hasn’t anyone heard of Occam’s Razor. So quick to call him a liar, when he likely didn’t have access to the exact number until just recently, and probably felt there were “a lot”, and made a rhetorical reference to “hundreds”. Should he have checked before he made his statement? For sure. But on the grand scheme of things, his exaggeration isn’t a high crime or misdemeanor.
Move along folks.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 08, 2010 at 1916 hrs
Wow, Joe. Did someone hijack your email address from Michael Best Friedrich?
Joseph Louis Olson?
“...they are all public records, the public has a right to access them…”
Where do you draw the line on “public records?” Are tax records public records? Or no one else’s business?
Would love to look at some tax records, starting with Glenn Beck. And Mike Sheridan. And Rush. And Pelosi. And Pat Robertson. And Cheney. And, well I could go on and on…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 08, 2010 at 1921 hrs
Again, the story is not whether CCAP is a good thing or a bad thing
I think that’s precisely what the issue should be. He exaggerated the number of complaints his office received? OKay, be mad at him. Run against him. Throw him out of office. Whatever suits you. But I don’t think it should overshadow the issue at hand: These public records seem in fact to be harming people that don’t deserve it. I’m inclined to agree with the proposed change.
Posted by scott on February 08, 2010 at 2052 hrs
I think this is a fabulous system and one that needs to remain in place. The cost of doing business with people who have shady backgrounds is one that the entire society bears. We all pay the price then for the problems of others who can’t seem to clean up their act.
Plus there is a deterrence factor here as well. Who wants to see their name up on CCAP for things like DWI? I think it helps prevent bad behavior.
This situation can be easily handled with a monitoring person who you can appeal to in order to get misleading information removed.
But if you’ve had two DWI’s or have stiffed your creditors numerous times in the past, I don’t really want to have my daughter dating your or be loaning you money.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 08, 2010 at 2058 hrs
It’s not enough to make public the names of these people after they’ve actually been convicted instead of just accused?
Posted by scott on February 08, 2010 at 2106 hrs
The criminal justice system grinds slowly. If I’m hiring a delivery truck driver and I’ve got an applicant battling a DWI, I’d like to know that. It is relevant to job performance.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 08, 2010 at 2108 hrs
That’s a good point. Let’s put that on one end of the scale. On the other end, the people whose lives and careers may be affected profoundly negatively by a false accusation. Thoughts?
Posted by scott on February 08, 2010 at 2121 hrs
That’s a good point. Let’s put that on one end of the scale. On the other end, the people whose lives and careers may be affected profoundly negatively by a false accusation. Thoughts?
I like that you automatically side with the applicant/employee who covers up their malfeasance, rather than the employer/landlord who could lose thousands in training dollars, 401k matches, health insurance, back rent. property damage, legal fees, insurance premiums, etc…. Potentially limiting their ability to hire/house someone else.
If we are going to do anything about CCAP it should be to make a more accessible appeals process for people who were falsely accused of a crime who can prove they were adversely affected by CCAP. This information is public record, unfortunately for the perpetrators of crime. Luckily for the people in my buildings, I am trying my best to make sure that their neighbors are not felons, child abusers, drug dealers, violent offenders, or drunks. How about we consider how many people could be negatively affected if I were unable to quickly and easily weed out people from the applications.
As Steve said, we all pay for failed hires or lessees…..
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 08, 2010 at 2222 hrs
I like that you automatically side with the applicant/employee who covers up their malfeasance
And I like that you automatically side with the government using its power to ruin the lives of innocent people.
Fair argument? Not so much—either way.
Hey, people are presumed innocent until proven guilty, am I right? Or is that siding with criminals who are trying to get away with their crimes?
I think I’m presenting a pretty reasonable point of view: We have to balance two competing interests. I’m open to suggestions. I myself am of the opinion that the convicted are hit with the scarlet letter, not anyone who’s accused.
Posted by scott on February 08, 2010 at 2231 hrs
I would argue that if a person, the record should go on CCAP. If a person is found not guilty, it should reflect it boldly on CCAP. However, it is a public record and all public records should be made public, whether it is for the good or bad. It is up to the people who use CCAP to decide whether the facts in the case merit a positive or negative impact.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2010 at 0329 hrs
”’m sorry for those who have changed their life or feel that their name brings up “misleading information”, but I guess that is why there is a section on most applications asking you to be upfront about your criminal history…...”
Doug, you illustrate perfectly the problem. You quote from my post so clearly you are speaking directly to my points. Who said anything about a criminal history? You leap to a conclusion, without having any idea the specifics related to the kind of situations I reference. The situation I am referring to is totally personal, and has no business being a part of any discussion with a potential employer, landlord, lender, neighbor, or person in the cube next to me at work who is fascinated looking up all their friends and co-workers records, out of morbid curiosity or because they love to gossip over their smoking breaks. Rest assured if I explained my particular situation to you you, you’d walk away mouth agape that such things can happen, and that courts can actually facilitate them. But the point is, I owe no one that kind of explanation ... certainly not to get an apartment ... or a job ... or car loan ... or to win an argument on B&S. You seem to think though, that since there is a CCAP entry, people with those entries who come to you looking for a job or a place to live should have an obligation to explain themselves to you as a landlord or an employer. In some cases, I might agree ... but not all ... and thats the problem CCAP presents ... once its there, its nearly impossible to get rid or correct.
“The one in a thousand times I incorrectly screen someone for “inaccurate court recording” or “misleading information” is worth the thousands of dollars I could be out in back rent, small claims fees, or nuisance citations.”
Gee ... at least it great for YOU. Never mind the 1 person who didn’t get the job they really needed, that you might have otherwise hired, had you not stumbled across something on CCAP and made a judgment without having all the facts. I wonder how that person feels about being out the thousands in wages they might have otherwise collected. Think that doesn’t happen, particularly in a job market like this? Think again.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2010 at 0834 hrs
2.Well Duke - they are all public records, the public has a right to access them and the problem you had seemed to stem more from having a stupid or vindictive (or both) ex-wife. The information the Korean folks needed was not on CCAP - it was given to them by your ex.
So then, China enjoys an open records law here in Wisconsin? How about the other states - they don’t pay for it. Why should they get to use it for free? Do we get to use their software access programs too - NOT.And you are correct in saying that the really ‘hot’ info came from an individual they called on the phone. Problem is, they got the names, addresses and the fact that I had recently been divorced/arrested from CCAP. They put together names, addresses and dates to effect their scam. Without CCAP their scam would not have happened. I really doubt Korea has a ‘freedom of informatioin act.’
What we need with CCAP is a drivers’ license number and user name login for Wisconsin residents - the people who are paying for the system.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2010 at 0841 hrs
Reasonable, intelligent adults are capable of understanding that charges do not mean guilt - it’s arrogant & condescending to presume everyone is an idiot & can’t comprehend the context or read the disclaimers & explanation on CCAP itself. For example, for dismissed cases I see:
All charges against John Smith in this case have been dismissed. These charges were not proven and have no legal effect. John Smith is presumed innocent.
and for open cases:
This case has not been concluded. Unless a judgment of conviction is entered, the defendant is presumed innocent of all charges.
For people who see those entries and hold it against a person or take some sort of action based on that (while ignoring the warning notice directly below) - well the problem is with those people, not with the system itself. Should we prevent newspapers/tv/radio from reporting when a person is charged of something? I mean there are some people who will see/hear that and presume the person is guilty. If they’re acquitted, it’s going to hurt the person many times more than the listing on CCAP. Please explain to me how it is different.
I see no reason why foreign IPs should be allowed access - that’s just a no-brainer. But if anyone thinks that’s going to prevent the fraud mentioned by the first poster, they’re incredibly naive. Credit card numbers with verification code are available on the black market for literally pennies. A full & complete identity costs a few bucks. Given the enormous number of other sources available, CCAP really has nothing to do with that problem. I also have to question how it was concluded that the foreign criminals got their info from CCAP.
Yes there most certainly needs to be mechanisms to correct inaccurate information - but that isn’t really the problem people have. In most cases, it’s not that a mistake was made (though I’m sure that does happen) but rather that people want to prevent easy access to accurate but uncomfortable information. If something is of public record, then it should be easily available.
An interesting wrinkle - what about requiring registration & a login to view CCAP data? If someone commits a crime against a person listed in CCAP, their search history could be used as evidence against them.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2010 at 0947 hrs
Come on Locke ... no one is suggesting that those situations are difficult for people to sort out. I guess I just have to come right out and explain what I am talking about.
Just wondering how many of you who thinks this unfettered access to all circuit court filings are aware of the explosion in requests for Restraining Orders since CCAP went online and became so widely used? Any idea how badly abused the TRO process is? I could tell you stories that would shock you.
Most common denominator in the requests ... the vast majority of them are filed while family court proceedings are pending ... more often than not, when there are divorces in progress or about to start and child custody/placement issues are being disputed. Ever been around people going through a divorce and are headed to trial on placement issues. Some of those people get pretty ****ing evil. Go talk to a family law attorney over a beer sometime and get them to tell you about some of the downright depraved crap that people do to others in the name of trying to get a leg up in a custody case, or to extract revenge. CCAP can’t tell you that though ... its just a record.
It doesn’t take a genius to figure out why this explosion in RO requests are occurring ... but just in case some of you don’t have much experience with divorce, or family court ... its because TRO (Temporary Restraining Order) requests have become a great new way for the truly desperate to try and apply pressure to another party to get them to act, or for the truly despicable, its a tool often used simply to extract revenge for injustices real or perceived. People know that once one is filed, its out there forever. Its embarrassing, for the person who has one filed against them, regardless of the final outcome. To get one filed all you have to do is file the paperwork ... and you get a really quick hearing too. I believe within 3 days by law. Its cheap, easy, and amazingly effective at wreaking havoc on the person who has it filed against them. And the real beauty is that the burden of proof to get one made permanent, is simply 51%. In other words, if a person can get a judge to believe there is a 51% probability that the charges leveled are true, he can grant the order ... a far cry from beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers. There don’t even have to have been criminal charges filed, or even complaints made to law enforcement to file one, or to get one granted. Yet many who see these in CCAP view it the same as they would a conviction for battery or assault, or worse. And of course there are others who just see that a TRO has been filed, and make the determination, that where there is smoke (the TRO Request) there must be fire (The person is dangerous, unstable, etc)
Obviously some TRO’s are necessary and valuable tools to help protect people from harassment or violence. Many however, are simply bogus and filed for no other reason than to create the CCAP entry itself. If you don’t believe that’s true ... you’re incredibly naive. Now, all you CCAP experts out there ... you tell me looking at CCAP which TRO requests are simply tools of leverage or extortion ... and which are filed for legitimate purposes of providing a tool for protection. I dare you to tell the difference looking at the average TRO CCAP entry. You can’t. And those that use this site for background checks try and convince me you don’t take into consideration that those records exist when you see them, regardless of outcome, when making a decision. Truth is people make hiring and renting decisions based on these all the time. And this says nothing of the potential damage done to the reputation of individuals within their communities, etc.
Of course there is no explanation in CCAP as to any of this ... only that its been filed along with the judges ultimate ruling on granting it or denying it. That assumes of course, it actually gets heard. Some have the venue transferred and for one reason or another, it never gets heard in the other jurisdiction .. ... or it gets rolled into other proceedings already before the court (proceedings which may be sealed, and there fore can’t be entered into CCAP in which case you can have these things just hanging out there in CCAP with nothing indicating how it was resolved or ruled, if at all. Good luck getting them removed though ... they are public records after all.
Now tell a school board considering the application of someone to be a coach or teacher to ignore the unresolved CCAP request for a Child Abuse Restraining order ... or a Landlord considering an application from that same person for renting in a neighbor hood or apartment complex with lots of kids. Or try being that person and wondering how you talk about this with the next door neighbor when they won’t let their kid come over to play with your kids at your house.
And the whole reason for this epidemic of TRO requests, is that people know that its going to be out there for everyone to see in CCAP, so it makes for a great way to really f*ck with someone. You tell me who truly benefits from making this kind of public record easy to find. The fact that they are so easy to find,and friends, neighbors, co-workers, perspective employees, perspective renters, youth athletic departments, civic organizations view this stuff is why they have become so popular to begin with.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2010 at 1112 hrs
Clearly CCAP need some sort of login verification process. Perhaps online sign-up and then verification by mail…or some other sort of process to avoid misuse and track use of the system. I can also see making dismissed charges, pending charges, and not guilty results very clear to the user. Also, some sort of simple and straightforward process should be implemented to remove or replace mistaken data. All that could be done relatively easily (well, maybe a bit of difficulty, as government NEVER does ANYTHING easily)
That said, there would be no reason at all for the public to be restricted from seeing any and all of the clearly public interaction of our judicial system. Under 50 verifiable complaints in a system that has millions of hits… I wish that most other government programs worked so well.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2010 at 1432 hrs
Sounds reasonable, but what is “very clear to the user”? What good will it do you when you’re interviewer looks up a pending (and bogus) case against you, decides not to hire you (or rent to you or whatever)? Next time he goes back, he’ll…what? Be looking up someone else. Not you. He won’t see the “retraction.”
I think there’s a good case to be made for transparency. I just find it strange that a group of people who hate and fear the government so much apparently have no concern whatsoever that it might be using its power to squash individuals undeservedly.
Innocent until proven guilty. Better 100 guilty go free than 1 falsely convicted. And put up the names of the convicted, not the accused. No amount of transparency is going to make up for the damage to one’s good name owing to the prejudice of well-meaning people.
Posted by scott on February 09, 2010 at 1445 hrs
Let’s take this out of the hypothetical - I looked up a certain elected official who happens to have both open and dismissed cases against him. This is exactly as it appears in CCAP, except the details are x’ed out just because. Is somebody trying to make the argument that these are unclear?
For a case listed as open, this is what is displayed:
____________________________________________________
State of Wisconsin vs. XXX XXXXXXX County Case Number 200XXXXXXXXX
This case has not been concluded. Unless a judgment of conviction is entered, the defendant is presumed innocent of all charges.
Notice to employers: It may be a violation of state law to discriminate against a job applicant because of an arrest or conviction record. Generally speaking, an employer may refuse to hire an applicant on the basis of a conviction only if the circumstances of the conviction substantially relate to the particular job. For more information, see Wisconsin Statute 111.335 and the Department of Workforce Development’s Arrest and Conviction Records under the Law publication.
_______________________________________________For a dismissed case:
_______________________________________________
State vs XXX XXXXXXX County Case Number 2009XXXXXXXX
All charges against XXX XXXX in this case have been dismissed. These charges were not proven and have no legal effect. XXX XXXX is presumed innocent.
Notice to employers: It may be a violation of state law to discriminate against a job applicant because of an arrest or conviction record. Generally speaking, an employer may refuse to hire an applicant on the basis of a conviction only if the circumstances of the conviction substantially relate to the particular job. For more information, see Wisconsin Statute 111.335 and the Department of Workforce Development’s Arrest and Conviction Records under the Law publication.
_______________________________________________Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2010 at 1526 hrs
CCAP and other county based online records systems are the #1 resource to track and find someone. If you have a first initial, last name, and a state or county of residence, you can get a lot more information such as date of birth, spouse, address, property tax, assessed value, FULL address. It’s the first choice for investigators to use to find and track someone.
I would like to see that open / dismissed cases are stored completely separate… there’s no reason for anyone to know that I and my insurance company was sued by a greedy next door neighbor because their unsupervised child was jumping on my trampoline. I’m for open records, but I think Wisconsin should require some type of login / registration to limit searches for both systems - even though the property tax DB is county run.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2010 at 1651 hrs
Well, Jason, I don’t see the problem. The kid dies, you get charged with involuntary manslaughter—total bullshit—and never work again in your chosen profession. I’m sure the government will put up an asterisk next to your case indicating that it was dropped. No hard feelings.
Posted by scott on February 09, 2010 at 1707 hrs
No one can deny that there are some hard situations which result from wrongful use of the information on CCAP. But testimony at the hearings from the Director of State Courts revealed that there are as many as 2-4 million CCAP “hits” a day. Clearly the vast majority of users don’t approach CCAP with malicious intent. This is a good “open government” device which should be saluted, not condemned or restricted!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2010 at 1735 hrs
Maybe you’re right. Maybe it’s worth having the accused names up in public… why, I don’t know. But at the very least we should take a good look at the harm it might be doing so we have something to weigh it against. That’s all I’m saying.
Posted by scott on February 09, 2010 at 1740 hrs
just find it strange that a group of people who hate and fear the government so much apparently have no concern whatsoever that it might be using its power to squash individuals undeservedly.
Hate the government? Dead wrong. Fear the government? Dead wrong again.
In fact, another good reason to lay the record of proceedings in our courts wide open is to PREVENT the government from abusing it’s power. Open government… very open government… wasn’t that one of those things that went along with hope and change… open government? Maybe I misheard it. Heck, outside of issues dealing with a legitimate need for some privacy (kids, witnesses that may be endangered, whatever else), I’d love to see cable access televised courts. It would be good for voters to see judges in action, and good for troublesome folks to see where they might wind up.
The fact that there may be a case or two that has problems is no reason to end a system that has resulted in millions of correct and successful inquiries. Add some safeguards… ok, I could see that. Throw everything back into the shadows… bad move.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2010 at 1842 hrs
Gentlemen - again please read my post above. Rather than creating made up scenarios and making up what you think CCAP might say, why not look at what it really does say. There have been a number of changes since it began - especially in regard to open & dismissed charges. I’ve provided concrete examples that show how open and dismissed records are show - and it’s not anything like your imaginary cases. I don’t know the system inside & out - could be that in other circumstances, an open or dismissed record lists a person as a horrible person & threat to society. But so far, all the open & dismissed records I’ve found are exactly as I posted above.
Either provide support for your argument - that CCAP is currently listing details and damaging information for open & dismissed cases or stop making that claim.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2010 at 2014 hrs
I can assure you that the scenarios I presented are anything but made up. I can also tell you that they don’t show up like the ones you present. I’ve made my case the best I can ... take from it what you will. But I’m telling you, what I described is not fictional.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2010 at 2116 hrs
@TD - that’s fine. I won’t ask you to post the details or the name of the person involved. I will ask that you do a search of CCAP now - and report back. If it’s an open or dismissed case and returns results different than the ones I’ve posted, I’m perfectly willing to take your word for it. Again, my understanding is that this has been changed - that more info used to be available for open & dismissed cases, but that has changed.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2010 at 2313 hrs
It does not appear that way. Specifically, a TRO was filed in County X. Venue was changed to County Y. If you open case details you will see an entry that County Y will hear the case. That’s it. Its closed, but not dismissed. No disclaimer. Nothing. Just the case, and an entry in the case details that it was transferred. Period.
The case does not appear in CCAP under County Y. The motion was merged into an existing family law case, which does not appear in CCAP, because it was sealed, which happens with some family law cases. If you want to know how or why, go talk to a family law attorney.
Therefore the only thing that anyone sees in CCAP is that the person had a Child Abuse Restraining order filed against them in County X. Nothing in CCAP indicates how it was adjudicated.
Final outcome, which is seen no where in CCAP, is that the TRO was thrown out, and the person who took it out wound up losing custody and placement of their kid for coaching kids into making false accusations of abuse to gain the upper hand in a placement battle where the person filing the TRO wanted to move out of state with the kids. That’s quite a different situation than most people who see nothing but the TRO request will assume when they see it in CCAP.
All anyone who is not familiar with those details would know from looking at CCAP is that the person had a Child Abuse restraining order filed against them. I can promise you, that just hanging out there has had a profound impact on the person’s life who had the TRO filed against them. People form judgements from that. Those judgements are NEVER favorable to the person who was ultimately wronged. Should they now be required to tell that whole immesely personal and private story to perspective landlords, employers, neighbors, etc because those people found that record in CCAP and think its relevant to thier employment and rental decsion, or because they have a ‘right to know’, when clearly it is NOT, and in this case they DON’T?
Have it fixed you say? Great Idea ... why didn’t they think of that? Well they did. Here is the conversation they have had, paraphrased ... at least on 5 different occasions over the years:
Clerk of Courts County X ... ‘We can’t remove it. Its a public record. Call County Y and have them post their case and case details in CCAP.’ ...
Clerk of Courts County Y ... ‘We can’t post anyting in CCAP ... the case number it is associated with is sealed. Those records are not public, therefore it cannot be posted publicly. Have County X call us’
Clerk of Courts County X ... ‘We spoke with County Y, and while we empathize with your situation, we can not remove entries from CCAP. The final adjudication of this did not happen in our jurisdiction, therefore we cannot edit what is there. Sorry.’Rare situation? Probably. Think that matters to the person(s) who find themselves in it? As Scott said in an earlier post, transperancy does nothing to restore that person’s good name, and it doesn’t make that person feel any better that his reputation and good name has been sacrificed so its easier for some landlord to not to rent to someone. That was 6 years ago and it still causes problems for the person to this day. Try becoming a Boy Scout volunteer with that hanging out there. Imagine how it feels when someone suddenly won’t let their kids play at your house with your kids ... It happens. Seriously, some of you people truly are clueless about how infromaton on CCAP is misused or misunderstood on a daily basis.
And frankly the idea that a few people’s reputations get wrecked, or people just flat out get screwed as a result of having this kind of information so easily accessable, is a reasonable price to pay so that its easier for people like Doug to weed out potential bad tenants, or undesirable employees is a crock. That can be accomplished without having every single circuit court record available at his finger tips in CCAP. Harder, or more expensive, maybe ... who cares? I’d rather he pay a few extra bucks or have to work a little harder, than to have some poor guy having to go through what I describe. And as for the multitude who go there just to check up on people they know,work with, live near, or just have morbid curiosity about because ‘Its a public record and they have a right to know’ is kinda creepy to me. I’m all for transparency, and I agree many records on CCAP should be posted and easily available for people to see. Most Criminal convictions. Most Money Judgements awarded. Beyond that, drag your butt to the court house and request the records if they are so important to you. There also needs to be a process where people can petition the state to remove or revise records that are either incorrect or misleading. I do not think that is an unreasonable position.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 0940 hrs
TD, I am not trying to sound apathetic, and I can see that you are passionate about this, but CCAP is a product of a technological age that is moving forward. I understand that it is unfair for some people, but the reality is that information, especially public records, are going to become ever more accessible, that is the reality of the internet. Sometimes people get hurt in the procession of the public good, does that make it right? No, but people like you need to get industrious and start making a stink about it….
If you are up for suggestions on how to deal with your situation, I would suggest that you start meeting with your state representative, and senator and try to get them to make the creation of an appeals process for CCAP a pet project. I’m sure that you can find other people with sympathetic stories to do the same… This is how the system works.
Is CCAP access something that I would pay a fee for? No, because I think that public records should be free and accessible. I don’t think the way to attack this subject is from the accessibility standpoint.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 1037 hrs
Doug, don’t lecture me about how ‘The System Works’ ... I think its you who really doesn’t understand how a lot of systems in this state really work, and how badly they can screw up good honest hardworking people’s lives no matter how well intentioned those systems and the people who administer them might be. CCAP is really just a victim of sorts of a lot of well intentioned, but completely screwed up laws, guidelines, processes and systems at work in our state government, as represented through legal actions carried out in thier name in the state Circuit Courts. If you do understand that, than you just don’t give a flying f*ck how they impact people so long as you getting what you want, and think you are entitled to. Fine. That is certainly your right. I have convinced you of nothing. So be it. Its really no skin off my nose. I tried to offer perspective on a topic many probably never even considered before ... you don’t care, and there is nothing suggesting you,or anyone else has to. Its information and perspective. Do what you want with it. Or do nothing. I don’t care.
But don’t condescend to me in trying to inform me about what I should or should not do, or who I should or should not talk to as if I am some neophyte in need of your enlightened wisdom and guidance on how to affect public policy or get help in dealing with a state or local government agency or program. You have no idea who I am, what I have done, or who I have attempted to engage on this.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 1150 hrs
@TD - since I was the one that asked, thanks you for helping to flesh out what is clearly a difficult situation. I know it doesn’t make an ounce of difference, but the individual and those touched by it have my sympathies. Fact of the matter is unfortunately this is but one area where a person can pay an incredible price for marrying the wrong person.
But back to the subject at hand - this certainly does seem like an edge case with the change of venue and getting rolled into a sealed case. A situation that wasn’t considered when the system was instituted - and clearly there needs to be a process for dealing with this specific situation, as there have already been numerous improvements along the way. That doesn’t take away the harm caused, but will help limit it in the future. Rather than dumb the baby with the bathwater - rather than dump or drastically change what has been one of the more successful public information systems the state has ever instituted, let’s push for what should be a minor process change and a very minor technological one.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 1210 hrs
The problem is that CCAP is a half-assed background check conducted by people who often have no idea how to use it, or what they’re seeing.
There’s a guy who has the exact same name as me, first, middle and last, who lives in the Madison area like I do, and who was born in the same year as I was, just a few months later. He also has more than two pages of arrests and convictions on CCAP. A professional background check that matches up addresses and other identifiying details like socials and employment histories would never confuse the two of us, but I’m quite confident some cheap employer or landlord who doesn’t know my DOB, but does know my age (or has a ballpark idea) would see that and pass on me without a second thought. And there’s no appeal that I can make because the records are accurate, though very prone to being misinterpreted. There’s no way I can warn every person I encounter in advance that I have a dubious doppleganger on CCAP. There’s nothing I can do to make sure that people who are using CCAP are using it properly, and not misunderstanding what it contains. That’s problematic.
So I understand that CCAP is a boon to those who need to conduct background checks but refuse to spend money on them, but those people need to be aware of the other side of the coin and consider whether they’re comfortable with a situation that hurts me just to save them a few bucks. I’m sure they’re fine with it, but I don’t think they should be. A little extra effort or expense on their part, which is perfectly acceptable within open records law, would definitely limit the potential misuse of the system.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 1303 hrs
Maybe you’re right. Maybe it’s worth having the accused names up in public… why, I don’t know. But at the very least we should take a good look at the harm it might be doing so we have something to weigh it against. That’s all I’m saying.
Here’s the problem I have with the “accused names in public arguement”. In some of the smaller local papers, there is a weekly or daily crime report. Likewise, the bigger papers have their stories with the names of the accused. Are you saying that the newspapers should be censored and not allowed to publish this information? I am not sure about other counties, but in the county I live in, there is a daily news release on the website stating the who, what, when and where (and if needed, how) of arrests that were made. Doing a CCAP search is really no different that doing a google search on someone. If you google my name and look hard enough, you will find that not only is my moving violation listed on CCAP, but it is also listed in my local paper’s website.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 1648 hrs
That’s an interesting point, but I’m not at all sure it’s the same thing. Someone’s name in the paper is fleeting. Comes and goes. Someones name in a public database has a little more staying power. There’s a reason people are using this database to to on-the-cheap background checks and not jsonline.
Posted by scott on February 10, 2010 at 1652 hrs
The fact is that Marlin is a moron. He flopped on CCW on veto override a few years back. He’s a whore for the Dems and a liar. He got busted.
As far as CCAP, I agree with the bill. What happened to being innocent until proven guilty? The people that like this are gossip queens. The employers that want this info can use a private service and pay for it if it’s that important.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 1344 hrs
Why should anyone need to use a private service to access a public record? Should there be any fee for a public record beyond the actual cost to provide the information to the requester in the format requested? Aren’t we supposed to have an open government and full visibility of it’s processes?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 1546 hrs
Good points. But our right to open records isn’t aboslute. There are plenty of instances where the government does not make things public—especially where private citizens information is in play.
Posted by scott on February 11, 2010 at 1616 hrs
By all means, delete the SSN’s if they are on there, or personal data in cases where that is appropriate. No problems there. I’ll even support forcing users to create verified logins the way credit checking places require.
Fact is, in the vast preponderance of circumstances, this system works well. Perhaps a tweak or two is in order, but Marlin’s handful of complaints is hardly a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 1831 hrs
y all means, delete the SSN’s if they are on there, or personal data in cases where that is appropriate.
Well, how about people’s names and identifying information is only visible when convicted?
Posted by scott on February 11, 2010 at 1920 hrs
But don’t condescend to me in trying to inform me about what I should or should not do, or who I should or should not talk to as if I am some neophyte in need of your enlightened wisdom and guidance on how to affect public policy or get help in dealing with a state or local government agency or program. You have no idea who I am, what I have done, or who I have attempted to engage on this.
I offered my advice without condescension. I’m sorry you took it that way…. I WAS sympathetic to your perspective, but you’ve proven unworthy of it.
I don’t actually care who you are or what you’ve done, whether you are a neophyte or a professional lobbyist….. as I expect you don’t care about who I am or what I’ve done. Take my opinion or leave it, but right now I’ve got some rental applicants to screen…. Guess where I’m going first, and if I find something, guess who’s judgement I am going to exercise….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 2006 hrs
Intimately, the post is actually the best on this laudable topic. I harmonize with your conclusions and will eagerly look forward to your future updates. Saying thanks will not just be adequate, for the fantastic lucidity in your writing.
P90X
Teeth WhiteningPosted by P90X on February 13, 2010 at 0004 hrs
Thanks for writing this interesting post.
George
acai berry diet berries scams
acai berry dietPosted by acai berry diet juice scams on February 13, 2010 at 1821 hrs
Total Entries: 20001
Total Comments: 134057
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 03:10 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 02:38 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 107
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 03:35 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).