Protective order process under review
Taking chaos out of the court process for Nevadans seeking temporary protective orders is the primary objective for a Nevada Supreme Court commission that sought public input Thursday.
"It's a chaotic situation," said Justice James Hardesty, commission co-chairman. "We can't let it remain the same."
A lack of consistency from one jurisdiction to the next, the absence of standardized forms statewide and the lack of laws on the books are among the key concerns of the high court's Commission on Preservation, Access, and Sealing of Court Records.
According to Hardesty, no issue is more important than resolving problems with a confidential information sheet from applicants. The panel learned the form is not very confidential at all. The data sheets have become a catch-all that includes the applicant's personal information and data the state must provide to the federal government for grant funding for domestic violence programs.
While no court in the state releases the confidential sheet to the public or the media, there is no law in place to ensure it remains confidential.
Most speakers represented the interests of domestic violence victims and agreed on key points: Protective order records should not be available on the Internet, and no person who has ever been the subject of one should be allowed to have it expunged from their record.
While many at the hearing agreed that such records should be kept off the Internet, the commission was less enthusiastic regarding the indefinite retention of protective order records.
Lee Rowland of the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, argued that protective orders, as public records, should be made available online.
Others, including Andrea Sundberg, executive director of the Nevada Coalition Against Sexual Violence, said victims already distrustful of the system would be even more reluctant to engage the courts for help if private information remains unprotected.
"We have to ensure victims are protected," Sundberg said.
Hardesty said the issues were complicated and the challenge will be finding a balance between protecting victims and preserving the adverse party's due process rights.
