When Wisconsin State Journal reporter Chris Rickert tried to scan court documents with his phone at the Dane County clerk of circuit court, a staff member stopped him. The clerk’s office says the practice violates a longstanding policy that requires any copies to be made by staff for the statutory $1.25 per‑page fee.
Policy background
Clerk Jeff Okazaki explained that while the public may inspect records for free at the office’s terminals, the law mandates that copies be produced by court staff for a fee. He cited a 2014 opinion from former state Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, which holds that clerks cannot charge for copies made with personal devices but may choose whether to allow such copying. Most Wisconsin counties, including Dane, have since prohibited the practice and posted a “No Cell Phones!” sign in the records room.
Historical perspective
Former clerk Carlo Esqueda, who led the office from 2007 to late 2023, said the sign was intended to keep phone conversations from disrupting others, not to block photo‑scanning. He noted that prior to the 2014 opinion, there was no explicit policy against using personal devices to capture records.
Impact on the public
Rickert, who has relied on phone‑scanning to avoid the per‑page charge, now pays the fee for some documents and takes handwritten notes for others. He argues that prohibiting personal copying adds labor and inconvenience without generating significant revenue for the clerk’s office. The policy also forces users to wait at public terminals, potentially delaying access for others.
Election context
Okazaki, running unopposed for a four‑year term this fall, maintains that he has not introduced new rules and that any enforcement stems from existing staff training. He acknowledges that some violations may have gone unnoticed and wonders how visitors could misinterpret the “No Cell Phones!” sign as permission to scan records.
Broader implications
Advocates for open government argue that allowing individuals to copy records with personal devices reduces staff workload and removes a financial barrier for taxpayers seeking public information. They contend that transparency should outweigh modest fee collection.
The discussion highlights a tension between maintaining orderly record rooms and ensuring unfettered public access to one of the most important categories of public records.
Original reporting: Wisconsin Watch — read the source article.
