Skip to content

Bills · 2009-2010 Regular Session

AB 663

Died at session end Official bill text Atom feed

restricting access to and limiting information contained in the Consolidated Court Automation Programs and providing a penalty.

  1. Introduced, stopped here
  2. Passes Assembly, not reached
  3. Passes Senate, not reached
  4. Governor signs, not reached
  5. Law, not reached

Unfamiliar terms? Glossary

What this bill does

Plain-language analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau

Under current law, the director of state courts established a consolidated

electronic system. This system, known as the Consolidated Court Automation

Programs (CCAP), contains information about civil and criminal cases filed in the

circuit courts in this state, including information about the parties and their

attorneys; documents filed; and deadlines, decisions, and outcomes of cases. CCAP

also contains information on family court proceedings; probate proceedings; John

Doe proceedings; reviews of certain administrative proceedings; tax warrants;

mechanics', construction, condominium, or other types of liens; civil lawsuits;

eviction proceedings; and domestic violence and other restraining orders and

injunctions.

The information on CCAP is available for free on an Internet Web site. The Web

site has no limitations on who has access to the information, although information

in certain types of cases is not available to the public. CCAP allows a user to search

for all civil and criminal cases in which a person or entity, who is the subject of the

search, has been a party.

Currently, the initial CCAP Web page for each criminal and traffic or other civil

forfeiture case contains the following statements: 1) for each criminal and traffic or

other civil forfeiture case, a statement that employers may not discriminate against

persons because of arrest and conviction records, except in certain circumstances; 2)

for each criminal and traffic or other civil forfeiture case that did not result in a

conviction or forfeiture, a statement that the charges were not proven and have no

legal effect, and that the defendant is presumed innocent; and 3) for each traffic or

other civil forfeiture case in which a forfeiture but no criminal conviction was

imposed, a statement that the charge or charges in the case are not criminal offenses.

Under this bill, the director of state courts maintains a database that is

accessible to the general public on the CCAP Web page and that provides case

information only after a court has done one of the following: 1) makes a finding that

a person is guilty of a criminal charge; 2) makes a finding that a person is liable in

a civil matter; 3) orders a person to be evicted; or 4) issues a restraining order or

injunction against the person.

Under the bill, the director of state courts maintains a separate database that

contains public records of circuit courts and that is accessible on the CCAP Web page

to judges, court commissioners, and other court or state and local agency employees,

law enforcement officers and employees of law enforcement agencies, lawyers,

accredited journalists, and licensed debt collectors.

Under the bill, the director of state courts removes from the database that is

accessible to the general public on the CCAP Web page all information relating to a

case if a finding or order related to the case or charge is reopened, vacated, set aside,

or overturned on appeal.

Under the bill, if a user searches for a person's name on CCAP and subsequently

What it would cost

Fiscal estimates filed by state agencies, as official PDFs

Sponsors

Introduced by: A. Williams (D) , Kessler (D) , Roys (D) , Schneider (D)

Votes

Assembly: Report Assembly Amendment 1 adoption recommended by committee on State Affairs and Homeland Security, Ayes 6, Noes 0

Passed 6–0 Apr 16, 2010 official source full page

No individual roll call was recorded for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Full history

  1. Jan 22, 2010 · Assembly

    Introduced by Representatives Schneider, Roys, A. Williams and Kessler

  2. Jan 22, 2010 · Assembly

    Read first time and referred to committee on State Affairs and Homeland Security

  3. Jan 27, 2010 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 1 offered by Representative Schneider

  4. Jan 27, 2010 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  5. Jan 27, 2010 · Assembly

    Public hearing held

  6. Feb 2, 2010 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 2 offered by Representative Schneider

  7. Feb 3, 2010 · Assembly

    Executive action taken

  8. Apr 16, 2010 · Assembly

    Referred to committee on Rules

  9. Apr 16, 2010 · Assembly

    Report Assembly Amendment 1 adoption recommended by committee on State Affairs and Homeland Security, Ayes 6, Noes 0

  10. Apr 16, 2010 · Assembly

    Report Assembly Amendment 2 adoption recommended by committee on State Affairs and Homeland Security, Ayes 4, Noes 2

  11. Apr 16, 2010 · Assembly

    Report without recommendation by committee on State Affairs and Homeland Security (Assembly Rule 19)

  12. Apr 28, 2010 · Assembly

    Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1