Cellphones barred from court — is that smart?
You can snap away in some records offices but not in heart of Silicon Valley
You can do it in Los Angeles, Oakland, San Francisco and Walnut Creek. But here in the heart of Silicon Valley, home to the world’s largest tech companies, you cannot make copies of public court records using your cellphone.
Instead, you must pay 50 cents a page to have a Santa Clara County Superior Court clerk make copies or do it yourself with a clunky portable scanner, which most people don’t own. Sacramento, Orange, San Bernardino, Ventura, San Diego and Riverside also say it’s a no-no.
But feel free to snap photos of public court records with impunity in other counties — including San Mateo, Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, Santa Cruz, Fresno and Los Angeles.
“I see no principled justification for not allowing people to use their cellphone cameras to take pictures of
public records,” said David Snyder, executive director of the First Amendment Coalition, a public records advocacy group. “The cost can be a barrier to public access.”
In addition to the cost, people who want copies of family court records in particular often have to wait at least 30minutes to an hour to be waited on by a clerk because of staff cutbacks.
Court officials in Santa Clara County defended the policy, saying it eliminates the risk of people with cellphone cameras harassing other courthouse visitors by taking their pictures. In the family courthouse, it also protects the confidentiality of certain files that are required by state law to be accessed only by parents and their lawyers.
“Unfortunately, some people have tried to take photographs of screen images and case files in matters being reviewed by other people,” spokesman Benjamin T. Rada said, “and in confidential cases this violates the privacy the law tries to protect.”
But counties that allow it say they aren’t aware of any incidents involving violation of privacy or security concerns.
“If it’s a court record, my philosophy is it should be available to everyone, not just people who can afford it,” said Chad Finke, CEO of the Alameda County courts, which allow cellphone snappage. “It’s like, why would I care if they use a cellphone? It frees my staff to do deal with our horrendous paperwork backlogs.”
The courts by law cannot charge more for photocopying documents than the cost of materials and staff time.
Santa Clara County court officials noted that people who can’t afford to pay for copies may apply for a fee waiver. Anyone who is on welfare or who grosses less than $1,256.26 a month is eligible. If your income is greater but you still can’t afford the copies, you have to divulge your expenses, including for rent, groceries, clothing, child care, laundry, transportation and utilities, and also report how much is in your bank account and any assets like a car, stocks or “furs.”
A spokesman said the court doesn’t track how many people have gotten waivers. But out of the tens of thousands of cases filed annually, it’s safe to say relatively few have applied.
The rules on cellphone cameras in California trial courts vary because the state Judicial Council allows local courts to set their own policies. All local courts across California, however, prohibit using cameras of any kind in other parts of courthouses, including courtrooms. News reporters occasionally may do so, but only with a judge’s permission.
In Monterey County, the public may photograph court records, but only with prior approval from a judge. Asked what prompted those rules, spokeswoman Stephanie Fathy summed up the reasons for the balancing act.
“First and foremost, keeping up with the technology,” Fathy said, “while still maintaining privacy.”
The issue arose in Santa Clara County on Nov. 14 after sheriff’s deputies caught Scott Largent on a video surveillance camera in the Family Justice Center courthouse snapping a photo of his own computer screen in a section of the records office where the public can review cases and then ask a clerk to print documents.
Largent is a vocal critic of the local justice system who spent amonth recently outside the courthouse, likening a local judge — via a bullhorn — to disgraced Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein, an alleged serial sexual harasser.
Largent complied when deputies ordered him to stop taking photos in the records room and erase the images.
However, his companion, court critic Susan Bassi, said she began videotaping the confrontation because she feared the deputies would hurt Largent. According to Bassi and a videotape of the incident, she declined to stop taping, and an officer grabbed the cellphone from her. At some point during the confrontation, her finger was broken, and she has filed an excessive force complaint with the Sheriff’s Office.
The incident has only fueled the court’s determination to uphold the phonephoto ban. Shortly after the clash, court orders spelling out the prohibition were posted on the front door of the courthouse in way of warning for the first time, court spokesman Rada said.
But several people waiting to consult a clerk inside the records office recently said they had used their cellphone cameras that day to snap pictures of documents displayed on court computers. It’s also not unusual to see people taking photos of criminal court records at the courthouse on Hedding Street.
Said Melvin Hsu, a San Jose resident who was waiting Nov. 20 in the Family Justice Center for a paper copy of his divorce decree and had no idea about the Bassi-Largent incident: “I just took some pictures here this morning.”