Administrative Orders from
Florida's Supreme Court
(Orders which are Pertinent to Civil Rights Litigation)
AOSC 3-16
AOSC 3-16 | ADOPTION OF FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS, TECHNICAL STANDARDS AND STRATEGIC PLAN
The purpose of these directives was to bring standardization and automation to trial court technology. This would ensure maximization of economies as to the limited resources available for technology, and would ensure that the needs of the judicial branch, its partners in the judicial system, and the needs of the public are met in regards to access to accurate trial court data and information.
The Trial Court Technology Committee has completed its assessment of judicial system needs and has inventoried the technology in the judicial branch. At a joint meeting held on October 25, 2002, the Florida Courts Technology Commission and the Trial Court Technology Committee approved a Functional Requirements Document, Technical Standards, and a statewide Strategic Plan. The Florida Courts Technology Commission also recommended that the Chief Justice enter into an administrative order to implement the above mentioned documents.
Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that:
1. Each circuit court and clerk of the court that undertakes to develop new data systems upgrades to existing hardware and software for the storage and maintenance of trial court data and records must adhere to the Functional Requirements Document, Technical Standards, and the Strategic Plan as approved by the Florida Courts Technology Commission.
2. Before a system that maintains trial court data and records may be implemented by a circuit court or clerk of court, whether it is vendor created or internally created, the specifications must be submitted for approval to the Florida Courts Technology Commission to ensure that the system meets the criteria set forth in the Functional Requirements Document, Technical Standards, and Strategic Plan.
3. In order to maintain standardization within the circuits, each judicial circuit must develop a strategic plan for local implementation that is consistent with the statewide Strategic Plan. The circuit strategic plans must identify future technology initiatives in the circuit and must be submitted by October 1, 2003, to the Florida Courts Technology Commission for approval.
4. By October of each subsequent year, each judicial circuit shall develop an annual operational plan that must be presented to the Florida Courts Technology Commission for approval. This operational plan will outline the tasks to be accomplished during the upcoming fiscal year and the estimated cost to achieve the tasks. To the extent that there are revenues associated with any such initiatives, the revenues should also be identified.
Assistance and guidance in the development and submission of circuit strategic and operational plans shall be provided by the Florida Courts Technology Commission.
If a circuit is not able to meet the deadlines established herein, then the circuit must provide explanation to the Chief Justice of this Court as to why it has not been able to comply with this administrative order.
DONE ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, this eighth day of April, 2003.
Chief Justice Harry Lee Armstead
Thomas D. Hall, Clerk of Court
AOSC 3-49
AOSC 3-49 | COMMITTEE ON PRIVACY AND COURT RECORDS
The Council produced and submitted to the Court the "Report and Recommendations of the Judicial Management Council of Florida on Privacy and Electronic Access to Court Records.” In its report the Council recognized that emerging technologies hold great promise for advances in the efficiency, effectiveness and openness of the courts , However, it concluded that current regulation is minimal and inadequate to protect the privacy interests of the public. It concluded that the Supreme Court should take steps to keep confidential and sensitive information secure from inappropriate disclosure through the implementation of carefully considered uniform regulation.
The Council recommended that a select committee be charged with the development of comprehensive policies to be adopted by the Court to guide electronic access to court records in the future. The Council also recommended that , until such policies can be developed and implemented , court records should not he generally available electronically. The Council recognized that policy development and implementation in this area must allow sufficient time to address the complexities of confidentiality requirements imposed by statutes and court rules and the current absence of statewide uniformity in policies governing electronic distribution of court records.
During the 2002 session the Legislature created the Study Committee on Public Records and charged it with studying similar issues of privacy in the electronic release of court records as well as other public records. In our opinion, In Re: Report and Recommendations of the Judicial Management Council of Florida on Privacy and Electronic Access to Court Records, 832 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 2002), this Court indicated agreement with the recommendations of the Judicial Management Council , but deferred action on ihe Council ’s recommendations pending completion of work by the legislative Study Committee on Public Records.
The Study Committee on Public Records completed its report in February this year , in which it joins the Judicial Management Council in recommending that this Court adopt rules that set forth procedures regulating the electronic distribution of information contained in court records. The Study Committee also agreed that, until such time as electronic dissemination can be properly regulated, court records should not be disseminated electronically, whether via Internet access , bulk electronic release, or by other means.
The recommendations of the Study Committee on Public Records are therefore largely consistent with the recommendations of the Judicial Management Council: Each call for development of comprehensive statewide policies and a limited moratorium until these policies are in place. To effectuate these recommendations, the Chief Justice in April this year directed the Judicial Management Council Ad Hoc Workgroup on Electronic Access to Court records to provide sped He guidance on the formation and charge to the recommended policy committee , and on the reach and scope of an interim moratorium. The Ad Hoc Workgroup drafted a proposed order , which it circulated to interested parties with a request for public comment. Comments were received from fifteen parties. which the Ad Hoc Workgroup consulted in finalizing its recommended order.
Based on the foregoing recommendations, the Court has determined that the Chief Justice should establish the Committee on Privacy and Court Records. The Committee is directed to undertake the following tasks:
1. Recommend to the Florida Supreme Court comprehensive policies to regulate the electronic release of court records. The Committee should consider recommending a plan concerning the electronic release of court records that includes, at a minimum: rules of court that identify requirements that must be met as a condition of authorization to release court records electronically; a process under court rules through which a clerk of court may request and gain approval to electronically release court records; categories of court records that may or may not be authorized for electronic release; and procedures for ensuring that electronic release systems comply with applicable laws, court rules and court orders.
2. Develop and initiate strategies to reduce the amount of personal and sensitive information that may unnecessarily become a part oi a court record , fn this regard , the Committee should: examine court rules and practices, including but not limited to Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.285, that may result in the unnecessary inclusion of personal and sensitive information in court records ; develop and recommend strategies to educate lawyers and judges regarding the privacy implications of inclusion of personal and sensitive information in court records and official records; and develop policies regarding public education and notification about public access to court records.
3. Develop and submit to the Court recommendations regarding categories of information that are routinely included in court records that the Court should advance to the Florida Legislature for consideration as exemptions from the right of access pursuant to section 24 of Article I of the Florida Constitution.
4. The work of the Committee should be completed as expeditiously as possible in keeping with the importance of the its mission , but in no event shall the report of the Committee be submitted later than July 1 2005.
The following individuals are appointed to serve on the Committee until the work of the Committee is completed and they are discharged by the Court:
Mr. Jon Mills, Chair
Professor of Law and Director, Center for Governmental Responsibility
University of Florida, Levin College of Law
Box 117625
Gainesville, Florida 32611
Ms. Kristin Adamson
Novey, Mendelson, and Adamson
851 East Park Avenue
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Mr. Andrew Z. Adkins
Director, Legal technology Institute
University of Florida Levin College of Law
P.O. Box 117644
Gainesville, Florida 32611-7644
The Honorable Edward FT Fine
Chief Judge, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit
Palm Beach County Courthouse
Room 5.2500
205 North Dixie Highway
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Mr. A, Michael Froomkin
Professor of Law
University of Miami School of Law
1311 Miller Drive
Coral Gables, Florida 33146
The Honorable Lydia Gardner
Clerk of tire Court. Orange County
425 North Orange Avenue
P.O. Box 4994
Orlando. Florida 32801
The Honorable Jacqueline R. Griffin
Judge, Fifth District Court of Appeal
300 South Beach Street
Daytona Beach, Florida 32014
The Honorable Thomas D. Hall
Clerk of Court. Florida Supreme Court
500 South Duval Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Mr. Jon Kaney, Jr.
Cobb & Cole
150 Magnolia Avenue
Daytona Beach. Florida 32114
The Honorable Judith L, Kreeger
Judge, Eleventh Judicial Circuit
175 NW 1st Avenue
Miami, Florida 33189
The Honorable Barbara T. Scott
Clerk of the Court. Charlotte County
350 East Marion Avenue
P.O. Box 511687
Punta Gorda, Florida 33951-1687
The Honorable Kim A. Skievaski
Chief Judge, First Judicial Circuit
VI.C. Blanchard Building
190 Governmental Center, Fifth Floor
Pensacola. Florida 32501
The Honorabie Elijah Smiley
Judge, Bay County
Bay County Courthouse
P.O. Box 2269
Panama City, Florida 32402
Mr. Wall Smith
Court Administrator. Twelfth Judicial Circuit
P.O, Box 48297
Sarasota. Florida 34230
The Honorable Larry Turner
Judge, Eighth Judicial Circuit
Alachua County Courthouse, Room 41§
201 East University Avenue
Gainesville, Florida 32601
Justice R. Fred Lewis will serve as the Supreme Court’s liaison to the committee. Staff support will be provided by the Office of the State Courts Administrator.
It is further ordered that, effective immediately and until further order of this Court, no court record as defined by Rule of Judicial Administration 2.051(b)(1)(a) shall be released in any electronic form by any Florida clerk of court except as provided herein.1/
The following court record? are excepted from this restriction and may be provided in electronic form, except as controlled by statutory or rule restrictions:
a. a court record which has become an "official record" as defined by Florida law;
b. a court record in a case may be transmitted to a party or an attorney of record in that case;
c. a court record may be transmitted to governmental agency or agent authorized by law, court rule, or court order to have access to that record;
d. a court record which has been solitarily and individually requested, provided it has been manually inspected by the clerk of court or deputy clerk of court and no information which is confidential or exempt is released;
e. a court record in a case which the chief judge of the jurisdiction has designated to be of significant public interest, provided it has been manually inspected by the clerk of court or deputy clerk of court and no information which is confidential or exempt is released;
f. progress dockets limi Led to: case numbers and case type identification; party names, addresses and dates of birth; names and addresses of counsel; lists or indices of any judgments, orders. pleadings, motions, notices or other documents in the court file; court events, clerk actions and case dispositions, provided no confidential or exempt information is released;
g. schedules and court calendars;
h. courL records regarding traffic cases;
i. appellate court briefs, orders and opinions; and
j. court records which have been inspected by the clerk of court or deputy clerk of court may be viewed via a public view terminal within an office of a clerk of court, provided no confidential or exempt informakion may be viewed.
Any existing Internet or dial-up access systems, including existing subscription access agreements, must be terminated as soon as practicable, but in any event shall not continue beyond January 1, 2004.
Nothing in this Administrative Order shall affect statutory restrictions on the placement of certain court records on a publicly available Internet website or the status of any information that is made confidential or exempt from the right of access by a provision of Florida law or rule of court.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on November 25, 2003.
Chief Justice Harry Lee Anstead
Thomas D. Hall, Clerk
Footnotes
Section 3.40 - Definition Of In Electronic Form. information tn a court record "in electronic form” includes information that exists as:
(a) electronic representations of text or graphic documents;
(b) an electronic image, including a video image, of a document. exhibit or other thing;
(c) data in the fields or tiles of an electronic database; or
(d) an audio or video recording, analog or digital, of an event or notes in an electronic file from which a transcript of an event can be prepared.
AOSC 4-4
AOSC 4-4 | COMMITTEE ON PRIVACY AND COURT RECORDS
In recent years, government agencies across the nation have increasingly faced concerns over an unexpected byproduct of the Information Age — the broad release of sensitive or confidential information through electronic media. Responding to these concerns, this Court directed the Judicial Management Council of Florida to study the issue as it affects Florida courts and information contained in court records.
Subsequently, the Council produced and submitted a report to the Court “Report and Recommendations of the Judicial Management Council of Florida on recognized that emerging technologies hold great promise for advances in the efficiency, effectiveness, and the openness of the courts. However, it concluded that current regulation of access to court information is minimal, and may be inadequate in some instances to protect the privacy interests of the public and those directly or indirectly involved in court proceedings, while assuring continuing public access. The report concluded that the Supreme Court should take steps to keep confidential and sensitive information secure from inappropriate disclosure, while continuing to assure public access to court information, through the implementation of a carefully considered and uniform scheme of regulation.
The Council recommended that a select committee be charged with the development of comprehensive policies and a scheme to be adopted by the Court to guide and provide electronic access to court records in the future. The Council also recommended that until such policies can be developed and implemented all court records should not be generally available electronically. The Council recognized that policy development and implementation in this area must allow sufficient time for all concerned to carefully address the complexities of any confidentiality requirements currently imposed by statutes and court rules, as well as the current absence of statewide regulation and uniformity in policies and rules governing the electronic access to court records.
In our opinion, In Re: Report and Recommendations of the Judicial Management Council of Florida on Privacy and Electronic Access to Court Records, 832 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 2002), this Court indicated substantial agreement with the recommendations of the Judicial Management Council, but deferred action on the Council’s recommendations pending completion of work by the Study Committee on Public Records created by the Legislature. During the 2002 session the Legislature created the Study Committee on Public Records and charged it with studying similar issues of privacy in the electronic release of court records as well as other public records. The Study Committee completed its work and issued its report in February of 2003.
The recommendations of the Study Committee on Public Records are largely consistent with the recommendations of the Judicial Management Council, in that each call for development of comprehensive statewide policies on access, and a limited moratorium until these policies are in place. The Study Committee joined the Judicial Management Council in recommending this Court adopt explicit policy and rules that set forth appropriate procedures regulating electronic access to information contained in court records. The Study Committee also urged that, until such time as the electronic access to such information could be properly regulated, some temporary restrictions on electronic access to court records be imposed, whether the access is via internet, bulk electronic release, or other means.
To effectuate these recommendations, the Chief Justice directed the Judicial Management Council Ad Hoc Workgroup on electronic access to court records to provide specific guidance to him on the formation and charge to the recommended policy committee, and on the reach and scope of any interim moratorium. Subsequently, the Ad Hoc Workgroup drafted a proposal, which it circulated to interested parties with a request for public comment. Comments were received from some fifteen different parties, and the Ad Hoc Workgroup considered those comments before finalizing its recommendations to the Chief Justice. Based on the pending recommendations of the Ad Hoc Workgroup, the Court and the Chief Justice have determined that the Chief Justice should establish a Committee on Privacy and Court Records.
The Committee on Privacy and Court Records is now created by this Order, and the Committee is directed to undertake the following tasks:
1. Study, determine and recommend to the Florida Supreme Court comprehensive policies and rules governing electronic access to court records and information contained therein. The Committee should recommend a plan that includes, at a minimum:
• rules of court that identify requirements that must be met as a condition of authorization to release court records electronically;
• a process under court rules through which a clerk of court may request and gain approval to electronically release court records;
• categories of court records that may or may not be authorized for electronic release; and
• procedures for ensuring that any electronic access system comply with other applicable laws, court rules and court orders.
2. Study, determine and recommend to the Court appropriate strategies to reduce the amount of personal and sensitive information that may unnecessarily become a part of a court record. In this regard, the Committee should examine existing court rules and practices, including but not limited to rules such as Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.285, that may currently result in the unnecessary inclusion of personal and sensitive information in court records; develop and recommend strategies to educate lawyers, judges, and the public, regarding the privacy implications of inclusion of personal and sensitive information in court records and official records; and develop policies regarding public education on public access to court records.
3. Study and develop recommendations to the Court regarding categories of information that may be routinely included in court records that should be submitted to the Florida Legislature for consideration as possible legal exemptions from the right of access as provided in section 24 of Article I of the Florida Constitution.
Limited Moratorium
In order to address the concerns for some limited moratorium on access while these important issues are being addressed, it is further ordered that, effective immediately and until further order of this Court, no court record as defined by Rule of Judicial Administration 2.051(b)(1)(a) shall be released in any electronic form2/ by any Florida clerk of court except as further provided herein.
The following court records are excepted from this restriction and may be provided in electronic form as provided herein, except as otherwise controlled by express statutory or rule restrictions:
a. a court record which has become an “official record” as defined by Florida law;
b. a court record in a case may be transmitted to a party or an attorney of record in that case;
c. a court record may be transmitted to a governmental agency or agent authorized by law, court rule, or court order to have access to that record;
d. a court record which has been solitarily and individually requested may be provided to the requestor via electronic mail, provided it has been manually inspected by the clerk of court or deputy clerk of court and no information which is confidential or exempt is released;3/
e. a court record in a case which the chief judge of the jurisdiction has designated to be of significant public interest, provided it has been manually inspected by the clerk of court or deputy clerk of court and no information which is confidential or exempt is released;
f. progress dockets limited to:
• case numbers and case type identification;
• party names, addresses and dates of birth;
• names and addresses of counsel;
• lists or indices of any judgments, orders, pleadings, motions, notices or other documents in the court file;
• court events, clerk actions and case dispositions, provided no confidential or exempt information is released;
g. schedules and court calendars;
h. court records regarding traffic cases;
i. appellate court briefs, orders and opinions; and
j. court records which have been inspected by the clerk of court or deputy clerk of court may be viewed via a public view terminal within an office of a clerk of court, provided no confidential or exempt information may be viewed.
Any existing internet or dial-up access systems, including existing subscription access agreements, must be in compliance with the terms of this Administrative Order as soon as practicable, or in any event by March 1, 2004. Nothing in this Administrative Order shall affect statutory restrictions on the placement of certain court records on a publicly available internet website or the status of any information that is otherwise made confidential or exempt from the right of access by a separate provision of Florida law or rule of court.
The following individuals are appointed to serve on the Committee until the work of the Committee is completed and they are discharged by the Court:
Mr. Jon Mills, Chair
Professor of Law and Director, Center for Governmental Responsibility
University of Florida Levin College of Law
Box 117625
Gainesville, Florida 32611
Ms. Kristin Adamson
Novey, Mendelson, and Adamson
851 East Park Avenue
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Mr. Andrew Z. Adkins
Director, Legal Technology Institute
University of Florida Levin College of Law
P.O. Box 117644
Gainesville, Florida 32611-7644
The Honorable Edward H. Fine
Chief Judge, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit
Palm Beach County Courthouse
Room 52500
205 North Dixie Highway
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Mr. A. Michael Froomkin
Professor of Law
University of Miami School of Law
1311 Miller Drive
Coral Gables, Florida 33146
The Honorable Lydia Gardner
Clerk of the Court, Orange County
425 North Orange Avenue
P.O. Box 4994
Orlando, Florida 32801
The Honorable Jacqueline R. Griffin
Judge, Fifth District Court of Appeal
300 South Beach Street
Daytona Beach, Florida 32014
Mr. Thomas D. Hall
Clerk of Court, Florida Supreme Court
500 South Duval Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Mr. Jon Kaney, Jr.
Cobb & Cole
150 Magnolia Avenue
Daytona Beach, Florida 32114
The Honorable Judith L. Kreeger
Judge, Eleventh Judicial Circuit
175 NW 1st Avenue
Miami, Florida 33189
The Honorable Barbara T. Scott
Clerk of the Court, Charlotte County
350 East Marion Avenue
P.O. Box 511687
Punta Gorda, Florida 33951-1687
The Honorable Kim A. Skievaski
Chief Judge, First Judicial Circuit
M.C. Blanchard Building
190 Governmental Center, Fifth Floor
Pensacola, Florida 32501
The Honorable Elijah Smiley
Judge, Bay County
Bay County Courthouse
P.O. Box 2269
Panama City, Florida 32402
Mr. Walt Smith
Court Administrator, Twelfth Judicial Circuit
P.O. Box 48297
Sarasota, Florida 34230
The Honorable Larry Turner
Judge, Eighth Judicial Circuit
Alachua County Courthouse, Room 415
201 East University Avenue
Gainesville, Florida 32601
Justice R. Fred Lewis will serve as the Supreme Court’s liaison to the committee. Staff support will be provided by the Office of the State Courts Administrator.
The work of the Committee should be completed as expeditiously as possible in keeping with the importance of its mission, but in no event shall the report of the Committee be submitted later than July 1, 2005.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on February 12, 2004.
Chief Justice Harry Lee Anstead
Thomas D. Hall, Clerk
Footnotes
2/ For purposes of this Administrative Order, “electronic form” is defined by Section 3.40 of the Guidelines for Public Access to Court Records developed by the Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of State Court Administrators. A document transmitted via traditional fax, received on paper and not captured as a digital file, is not contemplated to be within the meaning of “electronic form.” Section 3.40 provides:
Section 3.40 - Definition Of In Electronic Form.
Information in a court record “in electronic form” includes information that exists as:
(a) electronic representations of text or graphic documents;
(b) an electronic image, including a video image, of a document, exhibit or other thing;
(c) data in the fields or files of an electronic database; or
(d) an audio or video recording, analog or digital, of an event or notes in an electronic file from which a transcript of an event can be prepared.
3/ This provision permits a clerk of court to respond via electronic mail to an individual and specific request for a record and is designed to facilitate access to a document by persons interested in specific litigation. Because this provision requires that each document be manually inspected by a qualified person employed by the clerk of court to assure that no information which is confidential or exempt is released, the use of automated programs in lieu of manual inspection is not permitted. The exception does not permit electronic transmittal of documents requested in large quantity, or permit the requested record to be supplied to anyone other than the requestor.
AOSC 4-11
AOSC 4-11 | ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION AND FILING OF DOCUMENTS – UPDATED ELECTRONIC FILING STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
In October 1997, the Chief Justice entered an administrative order that sets forth the standards and guidelines that must be followed to establish an acceptable electronic filing system. As referenced in that administrative order, the standards and guidelines were approved with the understanding that they may need to be periodically updated to reflect new developments in automation .
An updated version of the electronic filing standards and guidelines, which were developed and recommended by the Florida Courts Technology Commission’s Electronic Filing Committee, as set forth in the attached appendix, are hereby approved, with Functional Standard 11, entitled Document Access, to be implemented after receipt and consideration of a report and recommendations from the Supreme Court of Florida Committee on Privacy and Court Records. These new standards and guidelines replace the previous version approved in 1997 and shall be used by any party submitting an electronic filing plan for consideration by the Supreme Court.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, this 19th day of May, 2004.
Chief Justice Harry Lee Anstead
Thomas D. Hall, Clerk
Standards and Guidelines for Electronic Filing
April 2004
Technical Standards
A Florida court choosing to accept court documents electronically must comply with the following standards.Technical Standard 1. Document Format
Any information that will become part of, or is related to, a court case file, and which is being transmitted to the clerk of court electronically, must be described in a format that can be rendered with high fidelity to originals and, when possible, is searchable and tagged.
Specification
Acceptable formats include Portable Document Format (.PDF) and extensible Markup Language (.XML).
Commentary
In an effort to reduce redundant data entry, emphasis is placed on providing the ability to extract text from the electronic submission. For this .PDF or .XML file formats created by text based processors are preferred over facsimile or image based formats such as CCITT Group 4 TIFF (TIFF). See also Technical Guideline 2, Facsimile Images.
.PDF documents require a common reader to view and manipulate complex text and images. However, .XML documents are created using a complex grammar, which may require a mutually accepted format. Acceptable .XML documents are to be structured in compliance with the recommended standards adopted by the Joint Technology Committee of the Consortium for National Case Management Automation Functional Standards Project of the Conference of State Court Administrators and the National Association for Court Management.
Prior to transmission, electronic exhibits and images not available in text form should be embedded within the .PDF or .XML document.
Before electronic transmittal to the court, it is the responsibility of the party or other filing entity to verify the completeness and accuracy of the document after conversion to .PDF or .XML.
Technical Standard 2. Legal (Transmission) Envelope
Any electronic document or information submitted to a court with a filing or subsequent case action must be transmitted using a data structure that provides universal access at any court for electronic filing purposes.
Specification
Acceptable transmissions are to be structured in compliance with the recommended standards as adopted by the Joint Technology Committee of the Consortium for National Case Management Automation Functional Standards Project of the Conference of State Court Administrators and the National Association for Court Management.
Commentary
The Legal (Transmission) Envelope provides the format and content of information that must accompany a document that is being submitted to a court with a filing or subsequent legal action, so that a court can associate the transmission with case information in its case management and document management systems.
The Legal Envelope is limited by specification to multiple filings per envelope transmitted to one court for one case.
A conceptual model is located in the National Center for State Courts Standards for Electronic Filing Processes.
http://www.flcourts.orq/Q5ca/division5/fctc/NCSC E-Filinq Recommended Process standards 02 26 03.PDF
Technical Standard 3. Technical Requirements
All court based electronic filing processes will use Internet based open standards architecture including: Internet browsers, extensible Markup Language (.XML), and Web Services.
Specification
Acceptable software technology is to be based on Internet Request for Comments (RFC) and World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) adopted standards.
Technical Standard 4. Data Accompanying Submitted Documents
Filing entities are required to transmit data identifying a submitted document, the filing party and sufficient other information for entry in the court's docket or register of actions. In the case of a document initiating a new case, sufficient other information must be included to provide data to support the creation of a new case in the court’s case management information system.
Specification
Each appellate or trial court will be responsible for specifying particular data requirements.
Commentary
To provide maximum benefit to the court’s document submission process, electronic submission should carry sufficient structured data to permit the automatic indexing and docketing of the filing.
Technical Standard 5. Court Control of Court Documents
All electronic inquiries for court documents and information must be validated against the current, complete, and accurate court record.
Specification
Electronic documents and related data must reside in the State of Florida on hardware owned or controlled by the court.
Technical Standard 6. Use of Unique Identifier
Each lawyer or other person provided with a unique identifier for purposes of filing documents electronically must use that identifier when submitting any documents. Documents filed with the unique identifier will be presumed to have been filed by that lawyer or other person.
Specification
All electronic filing information systems must support the use of a uniform personal identifier.
Commentary
The Florida Courts Technology Commission and the Office of the State Courts Administrator must establish a uniform personal identifier system for use throughout all of the state courts information systems.
Functional Standards
Electronic filing systems must meet the following requirements to receive approval by the Supreme Court of Florida.These standards are phrased as functional requirements to which courts choosing to implement electronic filings must adhere, although there may be a variety of technical solutions by which each functional standard is met. These standards focus primarily on ensuring the integrity of the court record.
Functional Standard 1. Document Fidelity
All documents filed electronically must be printable as paper documents without loss of content or appearance.
Commentary
Both the content and appearance of electronically submitted documents must be faithfully preserved and printable as originally formatted. Printed documents will continue to be used regularly in the conduct of court business, so it must be possible to provide an accurate printed reproduction of any electronic document. It may also be necessary to convert electronic documents to paper (or film equivalent) for archiving purposes. Color documents present a challenge due to increased resources needed to support color.
Functional Standard 2. Archiving Electronic Documents
Electronic documents must be stored in, or convertible to a format that maintains content appearance, and can be archived in accordance with specifications established by the Department of State, Division of Library and Information Services.
Commentary
The Division of Library and Information Services currently accepts paper documents, images as microfilm or microfiche, and electronic records in a standard interchange format or in ASCII on any machine readable media form which includes, but is not limited to, magnetic media such as tapes, disks, and optical disks.
Functional Standard 3. Accommodation of Paper Submissions
Electronic documents must be retained in the electronic format in which they are submitted. However, documents submitted to the court in paper form must subsequently be scanned and imaged to facilitate the creation of a single electronic case file.
Commentary
It is important to faithfully preserve and reproduce both the content and appearance of electronically submitted documents. Post-submission conversion of electronic documents to different formats (e.g., from one word processing internal format to another, or to an “interchange format”) should be avoided because it can change the content and appearance of the electronic document. Even changing printers for a word processing document alters the document’s appearance. A proposed document format standard for electronic submissions is the Portable Documents Format (.PDF). See Technical Standard 1. Documents filed in .PDF format will retain their content and appearance without requiring conversion.
While direct submission is the preferred way to capture documents in electronic form, courts will still need to accommodate paper submissions as a component of a comprehensive electronic case file system. To facilitate the creation of a single electronic case file, it will be necessary to convert paper submissions to electronic form. While document imaging is relatively expensive and does not provide the advantage of direct electronic submission (see Guideline 3), limited use of imaging for the storage of documents originally filed as paper may be beneficial when combined with electronic filings to maintain a single electronic case file. Paper documents can be imaged in a way that avoids loss of content or appearance. Conversion of a paper document or image to text such as through optical character recognition (OCR) introduces errors and is acceptable as a means to create searchable text but not for retaining a document in its original form or as an archival record.
Functional Standard 4. Exhibits
Every implementation of electronic filing must accommodate submission of nonelectronic documents or exhibits.
Commentary
Since the application of electronic filing requires the electronic storage of official court records belonging to a case, courts must maintain an organized, searchable, and self-contained inventory of documentary and non-documentary articles and exhibits. Computer systems must collect and record meaningful information of articles and exhibits that cannot be electronically submitted using electronic filing systems.
The electronic filing system must be able to accommodate non-documentary submissions or exhibits and articles that are not paper or in a paper supported format. The system must also support multiple exhibits and must include a descriptive reference to specific items submitted. The description of each reference should be clear and distinct, including the general nature of the filing submission, the type of submission, and a general description. Examples of articles include such documentary evidence as court approved forms, executed wills, and non-documentary items such as cassette, video tapes, weapons, drugs, etc.
Functional Standard 5. Authenticity
A mechanism must be provided to ensure the authenticity of the electronically filed document. This requires the ability to verify the identity of the filing entity and the ability to verify that a document has not been altered since it was transmitted by the filing entity.
Commentary
One of the simplest ways to ensure the identity of the filing entity and document integrity is to use a secure communications channel connected to a restricted-access system and establish a login and password technique to identify the filing entity.
An enhanced and more flexible approach to meeting this standard is to implement an Internet security protocol such as a Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) that will provide data encryption, server authentication, message integrity, and optional client authentication.
An even more comprehensive solution is to use a digital signature technology, which can be used to both authenticate the identity of the filing entity and insure integrity of the document’s content.
Functional Standard 6. Virus Protection
Any computer used to accept electronic filings, particularly from sources external to the court, must be protected from unauthorized network intrusions, viruses, and worms and isolated from other court networks or applications.
Media capable of carrying viruses into court computers (e.g., computer networks and electronic media) must be scanned for computer viruses before processing.
Commentary
Computer systems used for electronic filings must be protected from unauthorized network intrusion including viruses and worms. Use of security products that specialize in network intrusion detection and prevention is recommended.
Functional Standard 7. System Isolation
Any computer used to accept electronic filings, particularly from sources external to the court, must be physically isolated from other court networks or applications.
Commentary
Due to the legally privileged and confidential nature of some filed documents, network security is critical. Although access to all public court records is essential, the public should not have direct access to internal court networks or computers upon which court operations are performed. Common methods used to isolate Internet web sites that support electronic filing include separate networks or “subnets” and/or commercial firewalls. Similar security precautions should be taken for other electronic filing methodologies.
Functional Standard 8. System Availability
Computer systems used for electronic filings must protect electronically filed documents against system and security failures during periods of system availability. Additionally, contingencies for system backup and disaster recovery mechanisms must be established.
Commentary
Several methods are available to protect against loss of electronic filings during periods of availability:
(1) electronic filings can be frequently written to isolated media such as magnetic tape or optical disk;
(2) electronic filings can be copied frequently to another computer system ; or
(3) a continuous register of information can be printed identifying the submission and submitter of each filing.
Note: For courts wishing to maximize the availability of electronic filing services, the period of system availability may be nearly 24 hours per day.
Functional Standard 9. Electronic Notification of Receipt
All electronic document submissions must generate an acknowledgment message that is transmitted to the filing entity to indicate that the clerk received the document.
Commentary
At a minimum the acknowledgment should include the date and time the document was received (which should be a court ’s official date/time stamp ), and a court assigned case number, if available, or document reference number. In addition to providing a document receipt to the filing entity (which merely acknowledges receipt of the submitted document), the court may also wish to provide a document validation (e.g., checksum or some similar validity check) by which the filing entity may be assured that the submitted document was received without change by the court. Provision for document validation is optional, but is recommended if the authentication technique implemented supports a validation feature.
Functional Standard 10. Document Integrity
Electronic filing systems must provide mechanisms for quality assurance and quality control of the submitted documents and case management data by both the court and the filing entity.
Commentary
The court may want to review the submission and validate the accuracy of the case management data before indexing and docketing an electronic filing.
Functional Standard 11. Document Access
Public access to electronically filed documents must be provided in accordance with the judicial branch policy on access to court records.
Commentary
Although most court records are public, some are expressly sealed by the court or otherwise exempt from disclosure pursuant to law or court rule. A statewide judicial branch policy on electronic access to court records is currently under development by the Supreme Court of Florida Committee on Privacy and Court Records. Courts that implement electronic filing processes must provide access to electronic court records in accordance with the policy approved by the Supreme Court. Currently, all court records that are not sealed or exempt from disclosure by law or court rule are available through the office of the clerk of court.
Technical Guidelines
The following technical guidelines, while not currently required, are recommended and may become functional standards in the future. The guidelines focus on promoting electronic filing uniformity throughout the Florida courts system. Additional technical guidelines may be developed as electronic filing processes and procedures mature.Technical Guideline 1. Embedded Hyperlinks
Hyperlinks embedded within an electronic filing should refer only to information within the same document, or to external documents or information sources that are known to be trustworthy and stable over long periods of time. Hyperlinks should not be used to refer to external documents or information sources that are likely to change.
Commentary
The basic concern is to preserve the integrity of the record. To ensure the integrity of a document, the integrity of any external information source referenced by hyperlinks must also be assured. Information sources external to the filed document may change significantly or even be eliminated between the time the document is created and the time it is reviewed by the court. This could become problematic if the document is archived as a permanent record, then retrieved for historical review in the future. Additionally, embedded hyperlinks to external sources can raise security concerns. External hyperlinks to unreliable sources can contain malicious software that can execute arbitrary system commands or computer programs without knowledge or consent, using various web browsers or .PDF readers.
Fortunately, the information most often referenced in legal documents consists of court opinions and case law that grow by accumulation, but are not replaced. It is thus reasonable to permit citations to such databases to be embedded as hyperlinks within electronic submissions. Use of such citation hyperlinks requires that the court’s electronic case management system include a component that can read and interpret the citation link and initiate the action necessary to retrieve and display the cited material. There are few other external information sources that offer this type of content stability; accordingly, hyperlinks to other external sources other than court opinions and case law should generally be avoided.
Technical Guideline 2. Facsimile Images
The use of facsimile documents as the format for electronic transmission to the court is strongly discouraged. Every effort should be made to obtain original documents in a standard electronic format that retains document content and appearance in a compact, text-searchable form.
Commentary
The standard formats for electronic filings are .PDF and .XML. See Technical Standard 1. Image files typically are twenty times larger, byte wise, than equivalent text document files, which substantially increases transmission time, hardware storage costs, and document database back up and recovery difficulties. Because of the larger file sizes, image access from remote sites over standard telephone lines could be very slow. In addition, transformation of images to text using OCR software can easily introduce errors.
If the court facilitates the creation of a single electronic case file by scanning documents submitted as paper, it is recommended that the scanned documents be captured in a .PDF format and stored in a compressed form supported by the .PDF capture software. A scanning resolution of at least 200 dots per inch (dpi) is recommended.
If for some reason the court must scan and store the document as images, it is recommended that a non-proprietary, industry accepted standard such as .TIFF be the format of choice. .TIFF can also be electronically converted to the .PDF format.
Technical Guideline 3. Digital Signatures
Digital signature standards based on public-private key encryption technology may be used both to authenticate the identity of the filing entity and ensure the integrity of a document’s content.
Commentary
Several competing methods for digital signature are currently being evaluated but as yet there is no universally accepted standard or clear market-leading product or approach. Furthermore, while digital signature technologies offer excellent mechanisms for authenticating the identity of the filing entity and validating document integrity, the use of digital signature technology may make the archiving process significantly more complex. To ensure the long term ability to read and validate a document it is necessary not only to archive the document itself, but also to archive the mechanism for applying and reading the digital signature or otherwise ensure long term availability of the digital signature mechanism. These issues will no doubt be resolved by the marketplace over time, but the answers are not yet evident.
Technical Guideline 4. Interactive Support
Electronic filing systems should support either an interactive filing process or a batch (non interactive) process.
Commentary
It is unreasonable to expect a court to provide multiple electronic filing processes until the demand requires the additional effort.
Technical Guideline 5. Self-Represented Litigants
Pro se litigants should be provided a means to fde documents electronically.
Commentary
To reduce the burden on the court in creating and maintaining a single electronic case file, it may be desirable to provide the means to receive electronic documents from all the participating parties in a case. This may include providing computer support for litigants at the courthouse or remote sites.
Technical Guideline 6. Accessibility
An electronic case file being used in a live courtroom environment should meet or exceed the capabilities and ease of use currently provided by a paper case file.
Commentary
Electronic documents should be available to court officers and personnel in a manner that provides timely and easy access. In addition, the electronic display should present infomiation to the courtroom participants in such an intuitive way that anyone can immediately retrieve docket and case specific information in a manner that is no more difficult than paging through a paper file.
To meet the basic requirements of timeliness in a court environment, access to electronic court records should be almost instantaneous with a retrieval time of one to three seconds for cases on the daily calendar, five to eight seconds for cases that have had activity during the past 60 days, and 30 seconds for closed or inactive cases. The system should provide some method to notify the requesting entity if a longer time delay will occur, such as when a case has been archived.
Simultaneous access for viewing of the same case file and/or document by multiple courtroom participants should be provided.
Large monitors (17-21 inch) with split screen capability should be installed in the courtrooms to improve readability and to enable the display of a complete 8½ by 11 inch page, thereby eliminating the necessity for a reader to scroll through the page. One effective use of split screen capability is to display docketing and indexing information on one side of the screen and a case document on the other.
The methods of selecting specific documents within a case file for viewing could be implemented by treating the docket as a menu and using touch screen technology to select the document to be retrieved, or by setting up hyperlinks between the docket and the documents in an electronic case file and again using touch screen techniques to select the specific document, or by combining some other Graphical User Interface (GUI) and touch screen technique. Regardless of the document retrieval techniques employed, a viewer should have the ability to quickly page through either an electronic document or case file. Forms and documents normally prepared by the judge or other courtroom personnel during a particular proceeding should be electronically prepared, reviewed, signed, printed, and distributed, as another function supported by the automated electronic case file system
AOSC 4-84
AOSC 4-84 | MANDATORY SUBMISSION OF ELECTRONIC COPIES OF DOCUMENTS ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER
• all briefs on the merits
• all briefs on jurisdiction
• all pleadings filed in death warrant cases
• all pleadings filed in Judicial Qualifications Commission cases
• all referee reports in Florida Bar disciplinary cases
• all hearing transcripts in death penalty cases
• all petitions requesting rule amendments (including the proposed rules) - this includes Rules Reg. the Florida Bar, Bar Admission Rules,
• Code of Judicial Conduct, Jury Instructions, and all Rules of Procedure.
• all petitions requesting procedural rule form amendments (including the proposed forms)
• all comments in rules cases
• all petitions and responses thereto in which the Court determines it will hold oral argument, and
• any other pleadings which the Court may designate. Any case may be so designated because there is significant media or public interest in obtaining briefs, pleadings, petitions, or other documents generated by the case, and parties and counsel in the case shall be notified of this by letter from the Clerk.
Currently the electronic copy is provided by sending the Court a diskette which contains the electronic version of the document. The Court has determined it would be more efficient for the Court and the public to require the electronic version of these pleadings be sent to the Court via e-mail.
Effective October 1, 2004, in addition to filing paper copies, all briefs on the merits, all briefs on jurisdiction, all pleadings filed in Judicial Qualifications Commission cases, all referee reports in Florida Bar disciplinary cases, all transcripts in death penalty cases, all petitions requesting rule amendments (including the proposed rules), all petitions requesting procedural rule form amendments (including the proposed forms), all comments in rules cases, all petitions and responses thereto in which the Court determines it will hold oral argument, and any other pleadings which the Court may designate, shall be submitted electronically either via e-mail, as explained below, or by diskette but not both. If by diskette, it must be in accordance with In Re: Mandatory Submission of Electronic Copies of Documents on Computer Diskette dated November 13, 2002. Effective April 1, 2005, all submissions must be via e-mail. Diskettes will no longer be accepted after April 1, 2005 .
Electronic submissions via e-mail shall be attached to an e-mail sent to the following e-mail address: e-file@flcourts.org. This e-mail address is for this purpose only. The Clerk's Office will not respond to e-mails sent to this address. Pleadings sent to this address will not be considered a filing. The subject line of the e-mail shall contain the Supreme Court case number, if one has been assigned, or the style of the case, if a case number has not been assigned, in substantially the following format: “Filing in SC00-0” or “Filing in Doe v. Roe.” The document must be e-mailed the same day the original paper copy of the document is filed or served.
Effective October 1, 2004, electronic submissions may be submitted in either Microsoft Word format or WordPerfect. Effective January 1, 2005, all electronic submissions in rules cases must be in Microsoft Word. For all other cases, effective April 1, 2005, submissions must be in Microsoft Word. Litigants and counsel should be aware that electronic versions submitted in WordPerfect will be converted by the Court to Microsoft Word and there is no guarantee that the document will be converted without error.
All electronic submissions in death warrant cases shall be sent to a separate e-mail address which will be provided to counsel by the Clerk's office when a death warrant is signed.
The official recorded filing date for these pleadings shall remain the date the paper copies are received by the Clerk's Office.
Any documents required by the order to be submitted in electronic form may be rejected for filing by the Clerk of Court if the electronic version does not conform to the requirements of this order, the rules of court or match the paper copy version.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to send copies of this order to The Florida Bar News for publication in at least two issues of The Florida Bar News.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on September 13, 2004.
Chief Justice Barbara J. Pariente
AOSC 6-20
AOSC 6-20 | IMPLEMENTATION OF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON PRIVACY AND COURT RECORDS
The Committee on Privacy and Court Records (the Committee) was established2 pursuant to recommendations of the Judicial Management Council3 and the legislatively-created Study Committee on Public Records,4 both of which recommended that the Supreme Court initiate a policy development process to guide the judicial branch in protecting privacy while providing electronic access to court records. After eighteen months of diligent work, the Committee submitted its comprehensive report and recommendations in August 2005, with twenty-four recommendations divided into three separate groups. On behalf of the Supreme Court and the people of this State, we offer our deepest gratitude to the Committee and to its chair, Professor Jon Mills, for their dedication, time and commitment.5
From January through June 2006, the Court accepted public comment concerning the report and recommendations in three stages. The Court held three public meetings, on March 1, April 19, and June 14, 2006, to receive public comment. The Court appreciates the participation of those who provided comments and attended the public meetings.6 The Committee had the difficult task of recommending comprehensive policies to the Supreme Court to regulate the electronic release of records. Two competing yet important values must be balanced in any responsible set of policies: openness and transparency in court records, on the one hand, and individual privacy, on the other hand. Any viable policy must balance these two vital principles.
The Florida court system has consistently been willing to consider and incorporate innovative techniques and new technologies into court processes. The strategic plan of the judicial branch expressly recognizes the value of information technology to improve court access and operations,7 and the current two-year operational plan for the branch includes specific objectives related to electronic filing, integrated information systems, automated forms and increased reliance on web-based information communication.8
The same technology that offers substantial benefit can bring significant risk. The instantaneous and inexpensive dissemination of information contained in court records enhances accountability and supports efficiency but also poses a potential threat to the privacy interests of individuals and corporations. The potential of access to all court records electronically raises the specter of increased opportunity for identity theft and misuse of personal information.
As the Committee observed in connection with Recommendation Eight, “a court file is primarily a conduit and repository of information exchanged among parties and the court. As such, the court file is not an open forum available for the gratuitous publication of extraneous and potentially damaging personal information.”9 When extraneous and potentially damaging personal information is available not just in paper form at the courthouse but also in electronic form, the potential for harm increases significantly.
The challenge for the judicial branch, as noted by the Committee, is “not merely to create an electronic access policy as a companion to an ‘over the counter’ records policy, but to create a blueprint for a comprehensive policy on court records that will serve the public and the courts as they move through the transition from a system of primarily paper records to one of primarily digital records.”10
Policies regarding privacy and access to records must be consistent with the fundamental vision and mission of the judicial branch and ongoing efforts to achieve that vision and mission.11 The bundle of issues regarding privacy, confidentiality and access to court records is connected inextricably within the larger context of the integration of emerging technologies into modern society, and these issues are not merely technical but are central to the future functioning of the courts and to relations between citizens and their government.
The efficiency of digital information management will over time compel migration from paper-based systems to electronic systems. Many clerks of court in Florida, including the Clerk of this Court, already employ scanning systems to convert paper documents into digital form for purposes of records storage and management. Additionally, several clerks of court have been authorized by this Court to accept some filings in electronic form, so that the record exists in electronic form from the beginning. Large volume institutional users of the courts, such as law enforcement agencies, state attorneys, public defenders and law firms, increasingly prefer electronic exchange of information with the courts. The issue is not whether the courts will make records available electronically, but rather when and under what conditions they will do so.
Several themes emerged from public comment and input, especially as a result of comments received from various representatives of the clerks of court. First, the clerks, as ministerial officers charged with maintaining custody of court records, cannot and should not be responsible for making substantive decisions regarding whether documents accepted for filing are confidential under current Rule of Judicial Administration 2.051(c)(8). Therefore, of critical importance is Recommendation Two of the report, which requires that rule 2.051 (c)(8) be amended to narrow “its application to a finite set of exemptions that are appropriate in the court context and readily identifiable. ” In directing that the rule be amended, the present administrative order specifically does not address the applicability of the absorption doctrine.12 Thus, as part and parcel of the specification of exemptions through an amendment to rule 2.051(c)(8), the substance of Recommendation Seventeen is approved: the filer bears responsibility for asserting and establishing the confidentiality of documents beyond the categories listed in rule 2.051(c)(8).
In the same vein, the concerns of certain clerks of court and the Florida Association of Court Clerks and Comptrollers are acknowledged; the responsibility for identifying unauthorized filings cannot be placed on the clerks of court. Thus, in directing that Recommendation Eight be studied, it is understood that the current rules already provide for sanctions against those who are responsible for unauthorized filings and that the rules should be studied to determine whether any sanctions need to be strengthened to further the goal of preventing gratuitous publication of extraneous and potentially damaging information.
Second, it will be extremely difficult and unnecessarily complicated to develop a responsible system of public access to court records if each clerk of court proposes, and the Court attempts to consider, different systems of electronic access. Therefore, before public access to electronic documents systems will be allowed, the clerks of court must be prepared to comply with technical and substantive standards adopted by the Court. These standards will address policies such as user interface and identification, access fees, sealing of court documents and the redaction of confidential information. In addition, the offer of The Honorable R. B. “Chips” Shore, Clerk of Court of Manatee County, to conduct a pilot program is accepted so that the Court can examine first-hand a proposed model for public access. On behalf of the Court, we express our appreciation to Mr. Shore, who has offered thoughtful and responsible suggestions for dealing with these issues.
Third, there is a crucial distinction between maintenance of court records in electronic form, whether they are electronically filed or scanned, and public dissemination of those records through electronic means. Unfettered electronic access to all court records cannot be allowed without polices in place that protect privacy interests and guard against unintended consequences detrimental to the judicial process.
With these caveats and observations in mind, the action taken on the twenty-four recommendations contained in the Committee’s report is outlined in the attached action chart. Recommendations specifically referred to various committees and other entities for implementation or for further study are addressed with more elaboration below.
1. The substance of Recommendation Eleven, General Policy On Electronic Access To Court Records, is approved. The goal of providing electronic access to non-confidential court records when appropriate precautions and conditions are met is fully supported. These precautions and conditions must not be so onerous that approval of electronic access exists in theory but not in practice. These precautions and conditions may be summarized as:
(a) revision of Rule of Judicial Administration 2.051 to set forth a “finite set of exemptions that are readily identifiable,” pursuant to Recommendation Two, but with the clarification that the Court has not made a decision as to whether the absorption doctrine applies;
(b) provision of adequate public notice, prominently posted in clerks’ offices and on websites, stating that inclusion of personal information in court records may make that information public; this includes notice to unrepresented litigants, as set forth in Recommendation Three;
(c) ongoing and cooperative education of attorneys, judges, court staff and clerks of court concerning the privacy implications of the inclusion of personal information in court records and the scope of confidential information under Florida and federal law, as set forth in Recommendation Three;
(d) development by the Florida Courts Technology Commission, in cooperation with the clerks of court, of uniform technical and substantive standards governing the electronic release of court records to be adopted by the Court; these standards should be submitted to the Chief Justice by November 1, 2006, and should address user identification and access fee issues, as well as the screening, redacting, striking and sealing of court records to ensure that confidential information is not improperly released;
(e) public inspection of court records must remain available at no cost at the courthouse, other than those costs authorized by statute, as set forth in Recommendation Twelve(c);
(f) court records must remain fully accessible to judges and court personnel for judicial purposes, as set forth in Recommendation Twelve(d); and
(g) records in juvenile, probate and family cases, pursuant to general law, are not to be made available to the general public via a website until further study is made.
2. To implement or further study a number of the Committee’s recommendations, the Committee on Access to Court Records will be established by separate administrative order. The Committee’s charge, which will be fully set out in the administrative order, is to develop proposed revisions to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.051 regarding confidentiality and access to records in response to Recommendations Two (Scope Of Confidentiality), as modified herein; Twelve (Conditions for Electronic Access), as modified herein; Thirteen (Confidential Information);13 Sixteen (Unsealing Of Records); and Seventeen (Responsibility Of Filer), as modified herein. The Committee also will consider Recommendation Eight (Unauthorized Filings), as modified herein.
3. The concept of a pilot program, such as that proposed by The Honorable R. B. “Chips” Shore, Clerk of Court of Manatee County, is approved. The Florida Courts Technology Commission, with the assistance of the Office of the State Courts Administrator (OSCA), shall develop an implementation strategy for a one-year pilot project to be conducted by the Clerk of Court of Manatee County. The Florida Courts Technology Commission, with the assistance of the OSCA, shall specify terms and conditions of the pilot project, including project goals, criteria for evaluation, reporting requirements, and a timeframe for conclusion and reporting of the results of the project. At the conclusion of the pilot period, the Florida Courts Technology Commission, with the assistance of the OSCA, shall submit a report to the Court documenting the results of the project and identifying recommendations regarding electronic access policies.
4. Until the pilot program is studied and uniform technical and substantive standards governing clerk of court websites offering electronic access to court records are adopted by the Court, in cooperation with the clerks of court, it is necessary to continue a modified moratorium. The moratorium is not intended to be a de facto prohibition against release of information by electronic means to the public. By separate Administrative Order AOSC 06-21,14 consistent with Recommendation Five, an interim policy on the electronic release of court records is adopted. The interim policy supersedes the limited moratorium contained in In re: Committee on Privacy and Court Records, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC04-4 (Feb. 12, 2004) (on file with Clerk, Fla. Sup. Ct.), and shall remain in effect until further order. However, the Chief Justice will review the policy by July 1, 2007, to determine whether it should be further modified.
5. The Florida Association of Court Clerks and Comptrollers is requested to advise the Chief Justice by November 1, 2006, as to the form and placement of public notice regarding the loss of privacy and the consequences that can occur due to the unnecessary filing of personal information in court records, including notice to unrepresented litigants as set forth in Recommendation Three (Notice Regarding Personal Information).
6. The Florida Bar, the Florida Association of Court Clerks and Comptrollers, the Florida Court Education Council, and the Education Sections of the Florida Conference of District Court of Appeal Judges, the Florida Conference of Circuit Judges, and the Florida Conference of County Court Judges are requested to advise the Chief Justice by November 1, 2006, as to how each entity envisions responding to the relevant educational components of Recommendation Three (Education Regarding Personal Information).
7. Consistent with Recommendation Six (Materials Recommended for Protection - Confidentiality of Certain Drug Court Information), the Task Force on Treatment-Based Drug Court is requested to review applicable Florida statutes, federal law, court rules, and local drug court policies regarding protection of confidential information in drug court cases, and to advise the Chief Justice as to the appropriate scope of confidentiality regarding medical, mental heath, and drug treatment information in drug court cases and to propose any recommended revisions to court rules, Florida statutes, or drug court policies necessary to protect confidential information in these cases.
8. Also in response to Recommendation Six (Materials Recommended for Protection), the Steering Committee on Families and Children in the Court is requested to develop proposed rules of court or statutory amendments, as appropriate, to require that psycho-social evaluations, psychological evaluations, and guardian ad litem reports be placed under seal.
9. To implement Recommendation Seven (Revision to Rules and Forms Leading to Extraneous Personal Information), the Steering Committee on Families and Children in the Court is requested to review the Supreme Court Approved Family Law Forms and to propose revisions to those forms to remove any requirements for personal information that is not necessary for purposes of adjudication or case management. The various Florida Bar rules committees are also requested to review their respective bodies of rules and forms and to propose amendments to those rules and forms consistent with this recommendation. These committees should keep the Committee on Access to Court Records apprised of their work.
10. Related to Recommendation Seven, the Family Law Rules Committee is requested to propose amendments to Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.285, Mandatory Disclosure, designed to reduce the unnecessary filing of financial information in family law cases, consistent with Recommendation Nine.
11. Consistent with Recommendation Ten (Duty to Protect Discovery Information), the various Florida Bar rules committees are requested to study whether rules exist or rules should be adopted that would require attorneys and litigants to refrain from filing discovery information with the court until such time as it is filed for good cause.
12. The Florida Courts Technology Commission is requested, with the assistance of the Office of the State Courts Administrator, to review Recommendations Twenty (Automated Search Technology), Twenty-One (Replacement of Commercial Court Records Databases) and Twenty-Three (User Identification) and to advise the Chief Justice on the implications and advisability of available policy options. In doing so, the Commission should be mindful that any access systems in Florida should be designed to minimize irresponsible use of court records. The Commission is requested to study other access systems, including the PACER system used in federal courts.
13. The Florida Association of Court Clerks and Comptrollers and the Florida Courts Technology Commission are requested to consider Recommendation Twenty-Two (Users Access Fees) and to advise the Chief Justice on the implications and advisability of system funding models that are uniform statewide and do not impose costs beyond those necessary to support the system.
As reflected in the attached action chart, a number of the recommendations are deferred pending responses to these referrals and will be addressed after consideration of those responses.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on June 30, 2006.
Chief Justice Barbara J. Pariente
Chief Justice-Elect R. Fred Lewis
Thomas D. Hall, Clerk of Court
Footnotes
2/ See In re: Comm, on Privacy and Court Records. Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC04-4 (Feb. 12, 2004) (on file with Clerk, Fla. Sup. Ct.); In re: Comm, on Privacy and Court Records, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC 03-49 (Nov. 25, 2003) (on file with Clerk, Fla. Sup. Ct.).
3/ See Judicial Management Council, Report and Recommendations of the Judicial Management Council of Florida on Privacy and Access to Court Records (2001).
4/ See Study Committee on Public Records, Report of the Study Committee on Public Records (2002).
5/ The Committee was composed of: Ms. Kristin Adamson, Tallahassee; Mr. Andrew Z. Adkins, Gainesville; The Honorable Edward H. Fine, West Palm Beach; Professor A. Michael Froomkin, Coral Gables; The Honorable Lydia Gardner, Orlando; The Honorable Jacqueline R. Griffin, Orlando; Mr. Thomas D. Hall, Tallahassee; Mr. Henry PI. Hamage, Miami; Mr. Jon Kaney, Jr., Ormond Beach; The Honorable Judith L. Kreeger, Miami; Professor Jon Mills, Gainesville; The Honorable Barbara T. Scott, Punta Gorda; The Honorable Kim A. Skievaski, Pensacola; The Honorable Elijah Smiley, Panama City; Mr. Walt Smith, Sarasota; The Honorable Larry Turner, Gainesville.
6/ Public comments currently are available on the Florida Supreme Court website: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub info/index.shtml.
7/ See Judicial Management Council, Taking Bearings, Setting Course; The Long-Range Strategic Plan for the Florida Judicial Branch (1998) (hereinafter Taking Bearings).
8/ See The Florida Supreme Court, Horizon 2006; The 2004-2006 Operational Plan for the Florida Judicial Branch (2005).
9/ Report, supra note 1, at 54.
10/ Id. at 7.
11/ See Taking Bearings, supra note 7.
12/ See Report, supra note 1, at 29 (“The question is whether the rule incorporates, or absorbs, state exemptions and federal confidentialities, thus making them confidentialities under court rule.”).
13/ Recommendation Thirteen, which urges revision of rule 2.051 to clarify that those records defined in the rule are confidential and may not be released except as provided, is approved as being consistent with existing law. This recommendation is referred to the new committee for a proposed rule amendment or committee note consistent with this recognition.
14/ See In re: Interim Policy on Electronic Release of Court Records, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC06-21 (June 30, 2006) (on file with Clerk, Fla. Sup. Ct.).
ACTION ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
COMMITTEE ON PRIVACY AND COURT RECORDS
| RECOMMENDATION | ACTION |
|---|---|
| GROUP ONE | |
| RECOMMENDATION ONE: PRIVACY PROTECTION REFORM Recommends Florida Legislature enact effective privacy protection laws, consider resolution to Congress. | Letter to Legislature advising of recommendation. |
| RECOMMENDATION TWO: SCOPE OF CONFIDENTIALITY Review and explore revision of the rule 2.051 to narrow its application to a finite set of exemptions that are appropriate in the court context and are readily identifiable. | Refers notice component to the Florida Association of Court Clerks and Comptrollers to advise Court as to form and placement of notice. |
| RECOMMENDATION THREE: NOTICE AND EDUCATION REGARDING PERSONAL INFORMATION Public notice and education of clerks, attorneys, judges, and court staff regarding loss of privacy due to unnecessary filing of personal information in court records. | Refers education component to the Florida Association of Court Clerks and Comptrollers, The Florida Bar, Florida Court Education Council, and the Education Sections of the Florida Conference of District Court of Appeal Judges, the Florida Conference of Circuit Judges, and the Florida Conference of County Court Judges for input to Chief Justice on how each will implement this recommendation. |
| RECOMMENDATION FOUR: COORDINATION AND OVERSIGHT OF RECORDS POLICIES. Create governance structure to oversee polices regarding all aspects of court records. | Defers pending completion of work of the Committee on Access to Court Records. |
| RECOMMENDATION FIVE: INTERIM POLICY Provide interim policy on allowable electronic access until permanent rules adopted. | Approves interim policy, with modifications, in separate administrative order. |
| RECOMMENDATION SIX: MATERIALS RECOMMENDED FOR PROTECTION (A) Rule revision to place psycho-social evaluations, psychological evaluations, and guardian ad litem reports under seal; (B) Treatment-Based Drug Court Steering Committee to make recommendations regarding the appropriate scope of confidentiality regarding medical, mental health and drug treatment information in drug court cases. | Refers to Steering Committee on Families and Children in the Court to propose rule revisions and statutory amendments, as appropriate. Refers to Treatment-Based Drug Court Steering Committee for recommendations and to propose necessary revisions to rules, statutes, or drug court polices. |
| GROUP TWO - MINIMIZATION | |
| RECOMMENDATION SEVEN: REVISION OF RULES AND FORMS LEADING TO EXTRANEOUS PERSONAL INFORMATION Review and revise rules of court and forms across all case types to avoid the filing of personal information not necessary for adjudication or case management. | Refers to Steering Committee on Families and Children in the Court to review the Supreme Court Approved Family Law Forms and propose amendments consistent with recommendation. Refers to Florida Bar rules committees to review respective bodies of rules and forms and to propose amendments consistent with recommendation. |
| RECOMMENDATION EIGHT: UNAUTHORIZED FILINGS Study court rule to prohibit the filing of documents that are not authorized by court rule or statute, or seeking relief by the court. | Refers to Committee on Access to Court Records to study and make recommendations consistent with administrative order. |
| RECOMMENDATION NINE: RULE OF FAMILY LAW PROCEDURE 12.285 Revise rule 12.285 to reduce the unnecessary filing of financial information in family law cases. | Refers to Family Law Rules Committee to implement. |
| RECOMMENDATIONS TEN: DUTY TO PROTECT DISCOVERY INFORMATION Create rule of procedure to require attorneys and litigants refrain from filing discovery information until such time as it is filed for good cause. | Refers to Florida Bar rules committees to determine if existing rules address or can be amended to address this concern. |
| GROUP THREE | |
| RECOMMENDATION ELEVEN: GENERAL POLICY ON ELECTRONIC ACCESS TO COURT RECORDS Judicial branch of Florida should adopt as a goal the provision of general public electronic access to court records through remote means in jurisdictions where conditions in Recommendation Twelve are met. | Approves substance of recommendation, with modification to conditions to ensure that they are not so onerous that electronic access is approved only in theory. |
AOSC 6-21
AOSC 6-21 | INTERIM POLICY ON ELECTRONIC RELEASE OF COURT RECORDS
In Recommendation Five of its report, the Committee recommended that an interim policy be established controlling the electronic release of court records until such time as a permanent policy is announced and implemented. After consultation with the Court, the interim policy recommended by the Committee is approved with modification.
This interim policy allows extensive docket information, as well as all final orders and judgments of the courts, to be made available electronically, such as on a website, as long as no confidential information is released. In addition, a chief judge of a jurisdiction can direct that all records in a case of significant public interest may be made available electronically. To facilitate orderly access to records affecting real property, the interim policy allows certain records affecting real property to be released. Finally, under this policy, any non-confidential Florida court record can be provided electronically in response to a request, provided the record has been manually inspected by the clerk of the court in order to ensure that no confidential information is released.
Therefore, it is ordered that effective July 1, 2006, no court record, as defined by Rule of Judicial Administration 2.051(b)(1)(a), shall be released in any electronic form3/ by any Florida clerk of court except as provided herein below:4/
1. The following court records may be made available electronically by a Florida clerk of court provided that no information is released that is confidential pursuant to federal or state law, court rule, or court order:
a. progress dockets, limited to case numbers and case type; party name, race, gender and year of birth; names and addresses of counsel; lists or indices of any judgments, orders, pleadings, motions, notices or other documents in the court file; notations of court events, clerk actions and case dispositions; name and date of birth and death of deceased in probate cases, address of attorney of record or selfrepresented party in probate case;
b. court records that are Official Records as defined by section 28.001, Florida Statutes (2005);5/
c. court schedules and calendars;
d. traffic court records; and
e. all appellate court filings, including motions, briefs, petitions, orders and opinions.
2. The following records may be made available electronically provided the clerk of court ensures that the described records are manually inspected and no confidential information is released:
a. the chief judge of a jurisdiction may, sua sponte, direct the electronic release of a record or records in a case of significant public interest;
b. records may be transmitted to a party, an attorney of record in a case or an attorney expressly authorized by a party in a case to receive the record;
c. a record that has been individually and specifically requested;
d. records may be transmitted to a governmental agency or agent;
e. civil cases in which a state agency, as defined by section 119.011(2), Florida Statutes (2005), is a party, with the exception that court files that are sealed pursuant to statute, court rule or court order shall not be available absent a specific order from the court unsealing the file;
f. pleadings, proof of service, motions and orders in actions affecting title to real property or tenancies to real property, including foreclosure of mortgages, ejectments, actions to clear title, specific performance, residential and nonresidential evictions, forcible entry and detainers, lien contest actions, partition actions and actions in which a lis pendens has been filed;
g. pleadings, proof of service, motions and orders in actions for declaratory judgments to establish foreign decrees as Florida judgments; and
h. injunctions affecting real property, excluding domestic violence injunctions, and orders denying or dismissing an injunction affecting real property.
While the records identified above may be made available electronically, this administrative order does not require that they must be nor does this administrative order create an obligation on any clerk of court to provide remote electronic access to court records. Article V of the Constitution of the State of Florida charges the chief judges of the district and circuit courts with the administrative supervision of the courts within their jurisdiction. Therefore, any questions that may arise regarding implementation of this interim policy should be addressed to the chief judge of the jurisdiction.
This order supersedes the limited moratorium contained in In re: Committee on Privacy and Court Records, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC04-4 (Feb. 12, 2004) (on file with Clerk, Fla. Sup. Ct.), and shall remain in effect until further order.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on June 30, 2006.
Chief Justice Barbara J. Pariente
Thomas D. Hall, Clerk
Committee Notes
2/ See In re: Implementation of Report and Recommendations of Comm, on Privacy and Court Records, Fla . Admin . Order No. AOSC06-20 (June 30, 2006 ) (on file with Clerk, Fla. Sup. Ct .).
3/ For purposes of this Administrative Order, “electronic form” is defined by Section 3.40 of the Guidelines for Public Access to Court Records developed by the Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of State Courts Administrators:
Section 3.40 - Definition Of In Electronic Form. Information in a court record ‘in electronic form’ includes information that exists as:
(a) electronic representations of text or graphic documents;
(b) an electronic image, including a video image, of a document, exhibit or other thing;
(c) data in the fields or files of an electronic database; or
(d) an audio or video recording, analog or digital, of an event or notes in an electronic file from which a transcript of an event can be prepared.
A document transmitted via a facsimile machine and not captured as a digital file is not contemplated to be within the meaning of “electronic form.”
4/ The confidentiality requirements of the interim policy stated in this administrative order govern any electronic release of court records, notwithstanding chapter 2006-285, Laws of Florida, amending section 119.071(7)(d), Florida Statutes (2005).
5/ Certain official records are confidential by statute. Further, section 28.2221, Florida Statutes (2005), prohibits a clerk of court from publishing on an Internet website records in cases governed by the Florida Rules of Family Law, the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure, or the Florida Probate Rules. Nothing in this order should be construed to negate these or any other statutory or rule restrictions.
AOSC 6-27
AOSC 6-27 | COMMITTEE ON ACCESS TO COURT RECORDS
The Court supports the goal of remote electronic access to court records and agrees with the Committee on Privacy and Court Records that at present the necessary conditions do not exist to permit a general, unrestricted distribution of court records. To assist in developing the necessary policies for electronic access, the Committee on Access to Court Records (hereinafter the Committee) is hereby established for a term to expire on July 1, 2008.
The primary purpose of the Committee is to review Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.051 and develop proposed revisions to the rule with regard to the following matters:3/
1. Recommendation Two: Scope of Confidentiality. Review and explore revisions of rule 2.051 to narrow its application to a finite set of exemptions that are appropriate in the court context and are identifiable. The Committee should note that the Supreme Court has not made a decision as to whether the absorption doctrine4 applies.
2. Recommendation Eight: Unauthorized Filings. Study court rules to prohibit the filing of documents that are not authorized by court rule or statute, or seeking relief by the court. The responsibility for identifying unauthorized filings cannot be placed on the clerks of court. It is understood that the current rules already provide for sanctions against those who are responsible for unauthorized filings; accordingly, the rules should be studied to determine whether any sanctions need to be strengthened to further the goal of preventing gratuitous publication of extraneous and potentially damaging information.
3. Recommendation Twelve: Conditions for Electronic Access. Propose amendments to rule 2.051 to allow remote access to court records in electronic form to the general public in jurisdictions where conditions are met.
4. Recommendation Thirteen: Confidential Information. Propose revisions to rule 2.051 to clarify that those records defined in the rule are confidential and may not be released except as provided. Because this requirement is already established in existing law, the Committee is directed to propose a rule amendment or committee note that is consistent with the recognition of the current legal requirements.
5. Recommendation Sixteen: Unsealing of Records. Propose revisions to rule 2.051 to provide a clear and effective mechanism through which a preliminary determination that a record is exempt or confidential can be challenged and reviewed.
6. Recommendation Seventeen: Responsibility of Filer. Propose revisions to rule 2.051 to provide for certain responsibilities of the filer of court documents regarding confidential information.
In addition, the Committee is directed to advise the Florida Courts Technology Commission and the Office of the State Courts Administrator regarding the terms and conditions the Committee finds advisable in the implementation of the pilot program authorized in Administrative Order AOSC06-20. The Committee is also directed to advise the Chief Justice, by June 1, 2007, of the advisability of alteration to the interim policy on electronic release of court records set out in Administrative Order AOSC06-21. The Committee may make other recommendations it deems appropriate.
The following persons are hereby appointed to serve on the Committee for a term that expires on July 1, 2008:
The Honorable Judith L. Kreeger, Chair
Circuit Judge, Eleventh Judicial Circuit
Ms. Sharon Abrams
Court Technology Officer, Eleventh Judicial Circuit
Ms. Kristin Adamson
Attorney, Tallahassee
Ms. Robin Berghorn
General Counsel, Ninth Judicial Circuit
The Honorable David Ellsperman
Clerk of Court, Marion County
The Honorable Mel Grossman
Circuit Court Judge, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit
Mr. Jonathan Kaney, Jr.
Attorney, Ormond Beach
The Honorable Melanie May
Appellate Court Judge, Fourth District Court of Appeal
Mr. Timothy McLendon
Attorney, Gainesville
Mr. Paul Regensdorf
Attorney, Ft. Lauderdale
Mr. Murray B. Silverstein
Attorney, St. Petersburg
The Honorable Kim A. Skievaski
Chief Judge, First Judicial Circuit
The Honorable Elijah Smiley
County Judge, Bay County
Mr. Walt Smith
Court Administrator, Twelfth Judicial Circuit
The Honorable Charles Williams
Circuit Judge, Twelfth Judicial Circuit
Judge Judith Kreeger shall serve as Chair and Justice Barbara J. Pariente shall serve as Supreme Court liaison to the Committee. Staff support for the Steering Committee shall be provided by the Office of the State Courts Administrator.
The Committee is directed to submit a progress report by June 1, 2007, and a final report by June 1, 2008. The Committee is authorized to propose amendments to rules of court procedure on issues addressed in this administrative order, for consideration by the Court. Recommended amendments to the rules of court procedure or forms shall be filed in petition form with the Clerk of the Florida Supreme Court. Mr. Paul Regensdorf shall serve as the liaison between the Committee and The Florida Bar Rules of Judicial Administration Committee.
Should the Committee make recommendations that require additional funding or resources to implement, the Committee is directed to establish the necessary liaison relationship with the District Court of Appeal Budget Commission or the Trial Court Budget Commission, as appropriate. At a minimum, the Committee shall provide the chair of the respective budget commission with copies of Committee reports and recommendations that reference the need for additional court funding or resources.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on August 21, 2006.
Chief Justice R. Fred Lewis
Thomas D. Hall, Clerk of Court
Footnotes
2/ See Committee on Privacy and Court Records, Privacy, Access and Court Records: the Report and Recommendations of the Committee on Privacy and Court Records (2005) (hereinafter Report).
3/ These tasks refer to recommendations by the Committee on Privacy and Court Records as set forth in the Report and as modified in Implementation of Report and Recommendations of the Committee on Privacy and Court Records, Fla. Admin Order No. AOSC06-20 (June 30, 2006) (hereinafter AOSC06-20).
4/ See Report, supra note 1, at 29 (“The question is whether the rule incorporates, or absorbs, state exemptions and federal confidentialities, thus making them confidentialities under court rule.”).
AOSC 7-49
AOSC 7-49 | REVISED INTERIM POLICY ON ELECTRONIC RELEASE OF COURT RECORDS
This administrative order revises and supersedes the interim policy contained in Administrative Order AOSC06-21. After consultation with the Court, the revisions to the interim policy recommended by the Access Committee are approved. The revised interim policy continues to allow extensive docket information, as well as all final orders and judgments of the courts, to be made available electronically, such as on a publicly accessible internet website, as long as no confidential information is released. In addition, as originally provided, a chief judge of a jurisdiction can direct that all non-confidential records in a case of significant public interest may be made available electronically. To facilitate orderly access to records affecting real property, the revised interim policy continues to allow certain records affecting real property to be released. Further, any non-confidential Florida court record can be provided electronically in response to a request, provided the record has been manually inspected by the clerk of the court in order to ensure that no confidential information is released.
The revised policy clarifies that it does not apply to records under the control of court administration. It also limits the application of the provision that addressed “traffic court records” to civil traffic infraction case records and disallows the electronic release of images of traffic citations, which can contain personal identifying information. The revised interim policy allows for the electronic release of the full date of birth of defendants in criminal cases. It permits clerks of court to provide attorneys remote electronic access to records in cases in which the entire court file is not confidential.
Therefore, it is ordered that no court record, as defined by Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420(b)(1)(a), shall be released in any electronic form4/ by any Florida clerk of court except as provided herein below:5
1. This policy does not apply to digital recordings of judicial proceedings or other records in the custody or control of court administrators.
2. The following court records may be made available electronically by a Florida clerk of court provided that no information is released that is confidential pursuant to federal or state law, court rule, or court order:
a. progress dockets, limited to case numbers and case type; party name, race, gender and year of birth; names and addresses of counsel; lists or indices of any judgments, orders, pleadings, motions, notices or other documents in the court file; notations of court events, clerk actions and case dispositions; full date of birth of defendant in criminal cases; name and date of birth and death of deceased in probate cases, addresses of attorney of record or self-represented parties in probate cases;
b. court records that are Official Records as defined by section 28.001, Florida Statutes (2006);6
c. court schedules and calendars;
d. civil traffic infraction case records, but not images of traffic infraction citations; and
e. all appellate court filings, including motions, briefs, petitions, orders and opinions.
3. The following records may be made available electronically provided the clerk of court ensures that the described records are manually inspected and no confidential information is released:
a. the chief judge of a jurisdiction may, sua sponte, direct the electronic release of a record or records in a case of significant public interest;
b. records may be transmitted to a party, an attorney of record in a case or an attorney expressly authorized by a party in a case to receive the record;
c. a record that has been individually and specifically requested;
d. records may be transmitted to a governmental agency or agent;
e. civil cases in which a state agency, as defined by section 119.011(2), Florida Statutes (2006), is a party, with the exception that court files that are sealed pursuant to statute, court rule or court order shall not be available absent a specific order from the court unsealing the file;
f. pleadings, proof of service, motions and orders in actions affecting title to real property or tenancies to real property, including foreclosure of mortgages, ejectments, actions to clear title, specific performance, residential and nonresidential evictions, forcible entry and detainers, lien contest actions, partition actions and actions in which a lis pendens has been filed;
g. pleadings, proof of service, motions and orders in actions for declaratory judgments to establish foreign decrees as Florida judgments;
h. injunctions affecting real property, excluding domestic violence injunctions, and orders denying or dismissing an injunction affecting real property; and
i. attorneys may be provided general remote electronic access to non-confidential records in cases in which the entire court file is not confidential.
While the records identified above may be made available electronically, this administrative order does not require that they must be nor does this administrative order create an obligation on any clerk of court to provide remote electronic access to court records. Article V of the Constitution of the State of Florida charges the chief judges of the district and circuit courts with the administrative supervision of the courts within their jurisdiction. Therefore, any questions that may arise regarding implementation of this interim policy should be addressed to the chief judge of the jurisdiction.
This order shall remain in effect until further order.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on September 7, 2007.
Chief Justice R. Fred Lewis
Thomas D. Hall, Clerk
Footnotes
2/ See In re: Committee on Access to Court Records, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC06-27 (Aug. 21, 2006) (on file with Clerk, Fla. Sup. Ct.)
3/ See Committee on Access to Court Records, Interim Progress Report and Recommendations on Modification to Interim Policy on Electronic Access to Court Records (2007).
4/ For purposes of this administrative order, “electronic form” is defined by Section 3.40 of the Guidelines for Public Access to Court Records developed by the Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of State Courts Administrators:
Section 3.40 - Definition Of In Electronic Form. Information in a court record ‘in electronic form’ includes information that exists as:
(a) electronic representations of text or graphic documents;
(b) an electronic image, including a video image, of a document, exhibit or other thing;
(c) data in the fields or files of an electronic database; or
(d) an audio or video recording, analog or digital, of an event or notes in an electronic file from which a transcript of an event can be prepared.
A document transmitted via a facsimile machine and not captured as a digital file is not contemplated to be within the meaning of “electronic form.”
5/ The requirements of the interim policy stated in this administrative order govern any electronic release of court records, notwithstanding chapter 2007-251, Laws of Florida, amending section 119.071(5)(a)7.d., Florida Statutes (2006), and creating section 119.0714, Florida Statutes.
6/ Certain official records are confidential by statute. Further, section 28.2221, Florida Statutes (2006), prohibits a clerk of court from publishing on an Internet website records in cases governed by the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure, the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure, or the Florida Probate Rules. Nothing in this order should be construed to negate these or any other statutory or rule restrictions.
AOSC 7-59
AOSC 7-59 | FLORIDA COURTS TECHNOLOGY COMMISSION
The Commission shall have primary responsibility to coordinate and review recommendations with regard to all court policy matters relating to the use of technology in support of the effective administration of justice. The Appellate Court Technology Committee, the Trial Court Technology Committee, the Electronic Filing Committee, and any other court technology committees or workgroups that may be established shall adhere to technology policies and standards adopted by the Commission. Court technology committees or workgroups with proposals that implicate court technology policy shall present those policy recommendations to the full Commission for review and approval, prior to submission to the Supreme Court.
Over the next two years, the Commission shall perform the following specific tasks:
1. Develop a comprehensive framework for the implementation of technology within the court system that addresses the needs of judicial officers, court managers and staff, and court users. This shall include assessing existing technology utilized in the state courts to determine whether it is sufficient to meet current and anticipated future needs and, if it is not, making appropriate recommendations for adjustments. The proposed framework should be consistent with the goals and objectives established in the Long-Range Strategic Plan and the 2006-2008 Operational Plan for the Florida Judicial Branch.
2. Complete the following projects that originated from In re: Implementation of Report and Recommendations of the Committee on Privacy and Court Records, No. AOSC06-20 (Fla. June 30, 2006):
a. In cooperation with the clerks of court, propose uniform technical and substantive standards that would allow consideration of remote access to court records in electronic form, conditioned on the effective identification and protection of confidential and exempt information. These standards should address user identification issues, the screening, redacting, striking, and sealing of court records to ensure that confidential information is not improperly released. The standards should assimilate recommendations that are to be provided by the Committee on Access to Court Records, the Steering Committee on Children and Families in the Court, and the Electronic Filing Committee.
b. Continue to oversee, monitor, and evaluate the pilot project implemented by the Clerk of Court of Manatee County for electronic release of court records.
c. Evaluate appropriate security precautions that are necessary with regard to any automated search technologies that may extract information from court records; consider methods or regulations that require commercial users of electronic court records to regularly update their databases with records that have been corrected or purged of erroneous, expunged, and sealed records; and advise the Chief Justice on the implications and advisability of available policy options.
d. Review and evaluate matters relating to user access fees identified by the Committee on Privacy and Court Records1/ and advise the Chief Justice on the implications and advisability of system funding models that are uniform statewide and do not impose costs beyond those necessary to support the system.
3. Continue to provide guidance and oversight on the development of an electronic filing portal that establishes a common entry point for all electronically filed court submissions in all jurisdictions. The Commission shall formulate proposed policies to ensure uniformity and standards to secure a comprehensive electronic record. The Commission shall also ensure proper outreach to court stakeholders to obtain input, and incorporate the results of that outreach effort into the electronic filing portal implementation plan submitted to the Court.
4. Ensure that the technology utilized at all levels of the State Courts System is capable of full integration.
5. Perform such other assignments related to the use of technology in the Judicial Branch as may be directed by the Chief Justice.
The Commission should integrate appropriate security policies into all projects to ensure the integrity and efficiency of court technology systems.
The Commission should also work to incorporate the principles of accessibility into all court technology projects, through consideration and application of the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; sections 262.601 through 262.606, Florida Statutes; and any other applicable state or federal disability laws.
The Commission is authorized to propose amendments to rules of court procedure and judicial administration if necessary to effectuate the tasks identified hereinabove, and in so doing the Commission is directed to establish the necessary liaison relationships with the appropriate Florida Bar rules committees.
Should the Commission make recommendations that require additional funding or resources to implement within the court system, the Commission is directed to establish the necessary liaison relationships with the District Court of Appeal Budget Commission and the Trial Court Budget Commission. At a minimum, the Commission shall provide the Chair of the appropriate Budget Commission with copies of Commission reports and recommendations that reference the need for additional court funding or resources.
The following individuals are appointed to the Commission for a term to expire on November 30, 2009:
The Honorable Mary Cay Blanks
Clerk of Court, Third District Court of Appeal
2001 S.W. 117th Avenue
Miami, Florida 33175-1716
The Honorable Angela M. Cox
County Court Judge, Duval County
330 E. Bay Street, Room 356
Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Honorable Gary M. Farmer
Appellate Court Judge, Fourth District Court of Appeal
1525 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
The Honorable Jim Fuller
Clerk of Court, Duval County
Duval County Courthouse, Room 103
330 East Bay Street
Jacksonville, Florida 32202-2919
The Honorable Marci L. Goodman
Circuit Court Judge, First Judicial Circuit
Santa Rosa County Courthouse, Box K
6865 Caroline Street
Milton, Florida 32570
The Honorable Sally A. Heyman
Miami-Dade County Board of County Commissioners
Stephen P. Clark Center
111 N.W. 1st Street, Suite 220
Miami, Florida 33128-1963
The Honorable Judith L. Kreeger
Circuit Court Judge, Eleventh Judicial Circuit
73 West Flagler Street
Miami, Florida 33130
The Honorable C. Alan Lawson
Appellate Court Judge, Fifth District Court of Appeal
300 South Beach Street
Daytona Beach, Florida 32114
Mr. Ted McFetridge
Trial Court Administrator, Eighth Judicial Circuit
201 E. University Avenue, Room 417
Gainesville, Florida 32601
The Honorable Manuel Menendez, Jr.
Chief Judge, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit
800 E. Twiggs Street, Suite 602
Tampa, Florida 33602
The Honorable Wayne M. Miller
County Court Judge, Monroe County
Monroe County Courthouse Annex
502 Whitehead Street, 1st Floor
Key West, Florida 33040
Mr. Ken Nelson
Court Technology Officer, Sixth Judicial Circuit
324 South Fort Harrison, Room 103
Clearwater, Florida 34616
Ms. Carol Ortman
Trial Court Administrator, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit
Broward County Courthouse
201 S.E. 6th Street, Room 880
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Mr. Paul R. Regensdorf
Stearns, Weaver, Miller, Weissler, Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A.
200 East Law Olas Boulevard
21st Floor, Penthouse A
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Mr. Murray B. Silverstein
Murray B. Silverstein, P.A.
150 2nd Avenue, Suite 900
St. Petersburg, Florida 33701-3341
Mr. Kent Spuhler
Executive Director, Florida Legal Services
2425 Torreya Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4039
The Honorable Charles E. Williams
Circuit Court Judge, Twelfth Judicial Circuit
2002 Ringling Boulevard
Sarasota, Florida 34237
Judge Judith L. Kreeger will serve as Chair and Justice Raoul G. Cantero, III, will serve as the Supreme Court’s liaison to the Commission through November 30, 2009. Staff support will be provided by the Office of the State Courts Administrator.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on November 19, 2007.
Chief Justice R. Fred Lewis
Footnotes
AOSC 8-41
AOSC 8-41 | IN RE: EMERGENCY REQUEST TO EXTEND TIME PERIODS UNDER ALL FLORIDA RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THE TENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
WHEREAS this danger also may have temporarily impeded the ability of attorneys, litigants, witnesses, jurors, and others in the performance of their duties and obligations with respect to many legal processes throughout the State of Florida;
THEREFORE, pursuant to the administrative authority conferred upon me by article V, section 2, of the Florida Constitution and Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.205(a)(2)(B)(iv),
IT IS ORDERED that:
2. In the Tenth Judicial Circuit, all time limits authorized by rule and statute applicable to civil (inclusive of circuit and county), family, criminal, domestic violence, probate, traffic, and small claims proceedings are tolled from 5:00 p.m. on Monday, August 18, 2008, through 8:00 a.m. on Wednesday, August 20, 2008, nunc pro tunc.
3. In the Tenth Judicial Circuit, all time limits authorized by rule and statute applicable to notices of appeal of final and non-final orders, whether filed in the circuit or county court, are tolled from 5:00 p.m. on Monday, August 18, 2008, through 8:00 a.m. on Wednesday, August 20, 2008, nunc pro tunc.
4. This Court recognizes that there may be instances where, because of this Tropical Storm, these and other time limits applicable to matters in the Tenth Judicial Circuit could not be met even upon application of the tolling periods stated above. If such a claim is made, it shall be resolved by the court in which jurisdiction is vested on a case-by-case basis when a party demonstrates that the lack of compliance with requisite time periods was directly attributable to this emergency situation.
5. The Court also recognizes that matters outside the Tenth Judicial Circuit may have also been affected by this emergency situation. Consequently, the tolling of time periods in matters outside the Tenth Judicial Circuit shall be permitted only when a party demonstrates that the lack of compliance with requisite time periods was directly attributable to this emergency situation.
 |  |
| Chief Justice Peggy A. Quince | |
| ATTEST: | |
 | |
| Thomas D. Hall Clerk, Supreme Court |
Thomas D. Hall, Clerk of Court
AOSC 9-23
AOSC 9-23 | FLORIDA COURTS TECHNOLOGY COMMISSION
The current term of the Commission is scheduled to expire on November 30, 2009. In order to allow the Commission to complete its pending business, I hereby extend the Committee’s term through June 30, 2010. The Commission shall continue to utilize the directives and membership established in Administrative Order AOSC07-59, dated November 19, 2007.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on June 1, 2009.
Chief Justice Peggy A. Quince
Thomas D. Hall, Clerk Supreme Court
AOSC 9-30
AOSC 9-30 | STATEWIDE STANDARDS FOR ELECTRONIC ACCESS TO THE COURTS
Section 16, Chapter 2009-61, Laws of Florida (Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 1718), provides:
The Legislature requests that, no later than July 1, 2009, the Supreme Court set statewide standards for electronic filing to be used by the clerks of court to implement electronic filing. The standards should specify the required information for the duties of the clerks of court and the judiciary for case management.
Electronic filing of court records primarily concerns the electronic transmission of records and supporting documentation from lawyers and litigants to the clerks of court, and further transmissions among first parties to an action, other parties, and clerks. This technology can make the process of submitting documents to the court and to other parties simpler, quicker, and less costly. It can also reduce the costs incurred by clerks of court for storing and transferring documents.
Electronic filing by itself does not effectuate migration of a court to a digital record system. Electronic filing is only one component, albeit perhaps the most critical component, of a comprehensive environment in which other components of the court process are also automated. This broader digital environment can be understood as electronic access to the courts, which integrates electronic filing, electronic records management, automated scheduling, electronic records access, as well as other aspects of the court process. Electronic filing systems implemented in the Florida judicial branch must be compatible with this Court’s goal of migration toward a comprehensive digital environment in an orderly fashion.
Related to the implementation of electronic filing is the concept of a single statewide Internet portal for electronic access to and transmission of court records to and from all Florida courts. This Court has previously endorsed the portal concept and directed the Electronic Filing Committee of the Florida Courts Technology Commission to develop a plan for implementation of the Florida Courts E-Portal. Thus, electronic filing systems must also be compatible with the Florida Courts E-Portal.
The Florida Courts Technology Commission is charged with advising the Chief Justice and Supreme Court on matters relating to the use of technology in the Judicial Branch. The Florida Courts Technology Commission and the Electronic Filing Committee have reviewed and proposed revisions to the electronic filing standards. The attached Florida Supreme Court Statewide Standards for Electronic Access to the Courts are hereby adopted, incorporated herein by reference, and shall be effective upon the signing of this order. These standards may be revised by the Court in the future, as may be necessary to achieve the mutual objectives of the judicial and legislative branches as identified in Chapter 2009-61, Laws of Florida.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on July 1, 2009.
Chief Justice Peggy A. Quince
Thomas D. Hall Clerk, Supreme Court
Footnotes
Florida Supreme Court
Standards for Electronic Access to the Courts
June 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
| 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | 4 |
| 2.0 DEFINITIONS | 6 |
| 3.0 FLORIDA COURTS E-PORTAL (E-PORTAL) | 6 |
| 3.1 E-PORTAL FUNCTIONALITY | 8 |
| 4.0 REQUESTS FOR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION AND FILING OF DOCUMENT INITIATIVES | 9 |
| 4.1 E-FILING STANDARDS | 9 |
| 4.1.1 SIZE OF FILING | 9 |
| 4.1.2 DOCUMENT FORMAT | 9 |
| 4.1.3 ELECTRONIC COVER SHEETS - DATA ACCOMPANYING SUBMITTED DOCUMENTS | 9 |
| 4.1.4 UNIFORM PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION | 10 |
| 4.1.5 ELECTRONIC NOTIFICATION OF RECEIPT | 10 |
| 4.1.6 SECURITY | 10 |
| 4.1.7 FILING PROCESS AND PAYMENT | 10 |
| 4.1.8 WEB BASED APPLICATION STANDARDS | 10 |
| 4.1.9 LEGAL TRANSMISSION ENVELOPE | 11 |
| 4.1.10 COURT CONTROL OF COURT DOCUMENTS - DATA STORAGE | 11 |
| 4.1.11 LOCAL VALIDATION | 11 |
| 4.1.12 DOCUMENT FIDELITY AND AUTHENTICITY | 11 |
| 4.1.13 EMBEDDED HYPERLINKS | 11 |
| 4.1.14 EXHIBITS | 12 |
| 4.1.15 DOCUMENTS EXEMPT FROM PUBLIC ACCESS | 12 |
| 4.1.16 ARCHIVING | 12 |
| 4.1.17 ACCOMMODATION OF PAPER SUBMISSIONS | 12 |
| 4.1.18 PUBLIC ACCESS | 12 |
| 4.1.19 SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS | 12 |
| 4.1.20 ADDING A PARTY | 12 |
| 4.2 TECHNICAL FAILURE | 13 |
| 4.2.1 DETERMINATION OF FAILURE AND EFFECT ON DUE DATE | 13 |
| 4.2.2 PROCEDURE WHERE NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING NOT RECEIVED | 13 |
| 4.2.3 RETRANSMISSION OF ELECTRONIC FILING | 13 |
| 4.2.4 SYSTEM AVAILABILITY AND RECOVERY PLANNING | 13 |
| 4.3 CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDED COURT REQUIREMENTS | 15 |
| 4.3.1 ACCESS | 15 |
| 4.4. ADA AND TECHNOLOGY COMPLIANCE | 15 |
| ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS | 15 |
| 5.0 ELECTRONIC SERVICE | 16 |
| 5.1 COMPUTATION OF TIME | 16 |
| 6.0 DELIVERY OF ELECTRONIC CASE FILES | 16 |
| 7.0 ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES | 17 |
| 7.1 SIGNATURES OF REGISTERED USERS | 17 |
| 7.2 MULTIPLE ATTORNEYS OF RECORD SIGNATURES | 18 |
| 7.3 ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS AND/OR HANDWRITTEN SIGNATURES | 18 |
| 7.4 JUDGE SIGNATURE | 18 |
| 8.0 CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM DESIGN FRAMEWORK | 18 |
| OVERVIEW | 18 |
| APPELLATE CASE MANAGEMENT | 19 |
| DESIGN GUIDELINES | 19 |
| CURRENT DATA COLLECTION SYSTEMS | 21 |
| SECURITY AND CONFIDENTIALITY | 22 |
| OTHER STANDARDS | 22 |
| 9.0 GOVERNANCE | 22 |
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On May 27, 2009, Chapter 2009-61, Laws of Florida (Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 1718), was signed into law and it requests that by July 1, 2009, the Court establish e-filing standards to be used by the clerks of court to implement electronic filing. This legislation requests that the standards specify the information that the clerks of court need to perform their duties and that the judiciary needs for case management, and directs the clerks of court to begin implementation no later than October 1, 2009.
The judiciary welcomes this legislative support for its constitutional operations and functions, and through the implementation of the attached Standards, will work with the Legislature in making Florida’s courts fully capable of functioning in our modern electronic age.
The term “E-Filing” used in Senate Bill 1718 in a strict sense means the electronic delivery of documents to the court. In its broader and more accepted usage, however, e-filing is used to describe electronic access to the courts in the future, where the public, their judges, the clerks, lawyers, and all who participate in our judicial system can fully utilize modern technology to obtain greater efficiencies in and access to our court system. Through SB 1718 and other initiatives the Florida courts of today will be able to effectuate electronic access to the courts in the future.
The people of the State of Florida, whether through their judicial officers, the clerks of court, their representatives (state attorneys, public defenders and private attorneys) or directly themselves, will benefit greatly from electronic access to the courts. The Commission realizes that requiring all court users to file their documents electronically would be more cost-effective than requiring courts to receive and maintain paper as well as electronic records. However the Commission also recognizes that requiring e-filing may restrict access to Florida’s courts for some users. The Commission will continue to study and discuss all of the ramifications of implementing e-filing and the means of effecting e-filing throughout the state so that the people’s access to their courts will not be limited by a transition to this new means of transmitting records to courts.
An electronic court file, fully accessible by all participants in the judicial system subject to the limits of Florida law and the Florida Constitution, will provide significant opportunities for increased efficiencies and ultimate cost savings to the Judicial Branch. These standards fully promote these goals through better case management, and modern electronic access to and use of an electronic record for all parties in recognition of and compliance with both the principle of public access and the legitimate right to privacy.
Electronic filing is an integral part of the Florida Courts Case Management program. Statewide standards provide for a single uniform access point, uniform standards and data elements for filing, docketing, calendaring, workflow, document development and case management. These Standards are embodied in a living document that is expected to be updated and improved as technology, business requirements, and other regulations change.
The Florida Courts E-Portal (E-Portal) is included as an essential part of these standards. The E-Portal will be a single uniform point of access for all state court electronic court filing. This E-Portal will be designed to ensure one uniform access interface throughout the state. All electronic court filings shall be processed through the E-Portal once it is established, and any other electronic filing access methods must be approved by the FCTC E-Filing Committee. Any local e-filing or related systems that are currently operating or in the process of development must become compatible with the E-Portal when it is approved by the Florida Courts Technology Commission. Continued approvals of clerk e-filing requests are contingent upon those improvements becoming compatible with the E-Portal.
The standards provide for electronic filing of court documents and delivery of electronic data to populate the local court and clerk of court databases and the creation of an electronic court file. The electronic data elements submitted in the cover sheets that are required by rules of procedure shall be received by the management service and available to populate existing and future case management systems developed by the court and/or clerk of court.
The electronic file created by this system shall be delivered electronically by the clerk to the judiciary in a form and manner that provides an improved workflow and work environment for the judiciary. The judiciary must approve any e-filing system application or e-filing system now implemented that intends to deliver the electronic files without the hard copy to the judiciary, as well as any electronic workflow and electronic judicial work environment.
This document contains four primary sections:
Florida Courts E-Portal – On April 30, 2008, the Supreme Court, in conference, approved the “E-filing Operational Policies, Florida Statewide Electronic Filing Portal” document. The document addressed the concept for a statewide electronic access to and transmission of court records to and from all Florida courts. To enable the implementation process to move forward, the Court intends to establish competitive solicitation to obtain assistance from qualified vendors.
Standards for Electronic Filing - This updated version of the electronic filing standards has been developed and recommended by the Florida Courts Technology Commission and the Electronic Filing Committee. This updated version replaces the previous version approved in 2004 (Supreme Court Administrative Order AOSC04-11) and shall be used by any party submitting an electronic filing plan for consideration by the Supreme Court.
Case Management System Design Framework – In April 2003, Supreme Court administrative order AOSC03-16, IN RE: Adoption of Functional Requirements, Technical Standards and Strategic Plan, was executed. The order set forth certain directives to bring standardization and automation to trial court technology. These documents were created to establish certain automated/electronic criteria that would assist judges in performing their duties. Even though six years have passed since the adoption of the functional standards included in these documents, they contain considerable information that will provide a framework to move forward with a base-line for a court case management system.
Governance – As noted in Supreme Court administrative order AOSC09-23, the purpose of the Florida Courts Technology Commission is to advise the Chief Justice and the Supreme Court on matters relating to the use of technology in the Judicial Branch. In order to effectively manage the multitude of technology-related activities facing the branch, there is a critical need to establish a system of governance. This governance process will assure integration of court technology at all levels and provide oversight for compliance with established standards. The FCTC plans to submit a recommendation for a proposed rule of judicial administration to address governance.
2.0 DEFINITIONS
Florida Courts E-Portal (E-Portal) means a statewide access point for electronic access and transmission of court records to and from the Florida courts. All filers of court records, lawyers and non-lawyers, would use the E-Portal for secure access to all courts for electronic access to the court including e-filing. The E-Portal will be capable of accepting electronic filings from multiple sources, using common data elements passing to and from each local case system.
E-filing means filing court records to a case through electronic systems and processes in compliance with Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, Rule 2.525. E-filing includes filing a court record with accompanying data elements necessary to either establish an index of records for new cases or associate the record with an existing case in the case management system. Efiling may also be referred to using the acronym ECF (Electronic Court Filing as established by The National Center for State Courts).
Electronic Court Records means those records as defined in Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, Rule 2.430 filed with and/or maintained by the clerk in electronic format. Electronic court records are electronic records created, generated, sent, communicated, received, or stored by electronic means which are capable of being printed as paper, or transferred to archival media, without loss of content or material alteration of appearance. Court records may be created or converted to electronic formats by the filer and electronically filed with clerks who maintain them using electronic case maintenance systems. Court records that have been filed in paper format may be converted to electronic records using scanning technology. Electronic court records shall constitute the official record and are the equivalent to court records filed in paper. Filing with the clerk shall be accomplished by electronic transmission as stated in Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, Rule 2.525.
Electronic Access to the Courts encompasses many levels of information, functionality, and case processing conducted in the judicial branch that may be completed by electronic means. Electronic access to the courts may include technology such as e-filing, electronic access to documents, electronic calendaring, case management systems, records management systems, statistics, resource management systems, and e-commerce.
3.0 FLORIDA COURTS E-PORTAL
The E-Portal will provide capability for a common entry point for all court e-filings in the State of Florida. The E-Portal will be developed in compliance with all existing and new e-filing rules as set forth in Rule 2.525, Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, and developed by the Supreme Court’s Electronic Filing Committee and subsequently approved by the Supreme Court. The Court will solicit vendors through a competitive process in accordance with Florida Law. The E-Portal will be built to maintain interfaces with other existing statewide information systems. The following diagram represents the current conceptual model of the proposed Florida Courts E-Portal:
3.1 E-Portal FunctionalityThe E-Portal has the following minimum functionality:
1. Single statewide login
2. Process for non-attorneys and for self-represented users to access the system
3. Uniform authentication method
4. Single point of access
5. Consolidated electronic notification section
6. Process for local validation
7. Automated interface with other e-filing systems
8. Utilize XML ECF 4.0. Standards.
9. Accommodate bi-directional transmissions to/from Courts
10. Integrate with other established state-wide systems
11. Accept electronic forms of payment
4.0 REQUESTS FOR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION AND FILING OF DOCUMENT INITIATIVES
In accordance with Rule 2.525, Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, a court of general or limited jurisdiction must apply to the Supreme Court for an Interim Order approving the acceptance of electronic transmission of documents for filing. Specific testing criteria must be put into place and reported during a 90 day period. After an initial period of testing the e-filing system, a site review will be conducted to verify that the electronic system meets all testing criteria, and the clerk may apply for a final order permitting e-filing with no follow-up paper filing. (Rule 2.525 (2))
The courts have been extremely flexible in allowing different types of e-filing requests to be approved. We are now at the point where there must be a standard approach to e-filing requests which should include the courts and the clerks agreeing which divisions should first implement e-filing. This will give both the court and the clerks time to update the cover sheets as specified in Section 4.1.3 Electronic Cover Sheets - Data Accompanying Submitted Documents.
4.1. E-Filing Standards
4.1.1. Size of Filing
Submissions shall not exceed 25 megabytes (25 MB) in size. No combination of files in one transmission may exceed more than 25 megabytes (25 MB) in size.
4.1.2. Document Format
Any information that will become part of, or is related to, a court case file, and which is being transmitted electronically to the clerk of court must be described in a format that can be rendered with high fidelity to originals and is searchable, tagged and complies with accessibility requirements in Chapter 282.601-606. Appellate Court document formats will be adopted to improve the readability of the document image, improve the redaction process by providing standard fonts and font sizes, and provide consistency of appearance for images. Appellate court standards include Times New Roman font size 14 or Courier New font size 12.
4.1.3. Electronic Cover Sheets - Data Accompanying Submitted Documents
Filing entities are required to transmit data identifying a submitted document, the filing party and sufficient other information for entry in the court's docket or register of actions. In the case of a document initiating a new case, sufficient other information must be included to provide data to support the creation of a new case in the court's case management information system.
Filers are required to complete and transmit with any e-filing uniform cover sheets that comply with current rules of procedure. The court shall develop, define and continuously update the uniform electronic cover sheets. The cover sheets will be maintained on the e-filing system.
The cover sheets shall be designed to collect the data elements in .XML format that support the filing, indexing, docketing, calendaring, accounting, reporting, document development, case management and other necessary functions of the court. In an effort to reduce redundant data entry, emphasis is placed on providing the ability to extract text from the electronic submission. For this process, word processing, .PDF or .XML file formats created by text based processors are required. Facsimile transmissions will not be allowed because they do not allow for automatic extraction of data.
4.1.4 Uniform Personal Identification
Uniform personal identification standards are necessary to promote electronic filing throughout the State of Florida. Each person provided with a unique identifier for purposes of filing documents electronically must use that identifier when submitting any documents. Documents filed with the unique identifier will be presumed to have been filed by that person.
All electronic filing information systems must support the use of a uniform personal identifier.
4.1.5 Electronic Notification of Receipt
All electronic document submissions must generate an acknowledgment message that is transmitted to the filer to indicate that the clerk received the document.
At a minimum the acknowledgment should include the date and time the document was received (which should be a court’s official date/time stamp), and a court assigned case number, if available, or document reference number.
4.1.6 Security
Any computer utilized to accept e-filings, particularly from sources external to the court, must be protected from unauthorized network intrusions, viruses, and worms and isolated from other court networks or applications. Software and security devices such as antivirus, firewalls, access control lists, and other filters must be utilized. Media capable of carrying viruses into court computers (e.g., computer networks and electronic media) must be scanned for computer viruses prior to processing.
4.1.7 Filing Process and Payment
E-filing systems shall support an interactive filing process and/or a batch (non interactive) process. E-filing systems shall support electronic payment methods.
4.1.8 Web Based Application Standards
All court based e-filing processes will use Internet based open standards architecture as defined in the following:
• Rule 2.525, Florida Rules of Judicial Administration
• Supreme Court Administrative Order - AOSC03-16
• ECF 4.0 (National Center for State Courts (NCSC) – Electronic Court Filing Standard)
• Standards as defined in this document
Other reference sources of information may include:
Consolidated Case Management System Functional Standard V.0.20 (NCSC)
4.1.9. Legal Transmission Envelope
Any electronic document or information submitted to a court with a filing or subsequent case action must be transmitted using a data structure that provides universal access at any court. Submissions shall not exceed 25 megabytes (25 MB) in size. No combination of files in one transmission may accumulate to more than 25 megabytes in size.
The e-filing system shall perform a validation of the documents filed to insure that any discrepancies (such as incomplete data or viruses) are detected prior to the filing being submitted to the courts. Where possible, the user will be notified immediately if the efiling system detects errors in the filing process. There will be different validation rules based upon the type of filing (for example: new case initiation as opposed to filings in an existing case).
4.1.10. Court Control of Court Documents - Data Storage
Original court data must reside in Florida with the intent to ensure that the original court record will reside within the State of Florida on technology which is under the direct control of the Court and in the custody of the clerks. This does not preclude additional copies to be stored within or outside the State of Florida for the purposes of disaster recovery/business continuity.
4.1.11. Local Validation
When information has been filed electronically to the clerk, the clerk will perform a local validation to examine the filing and determine that it complies with e-filing requirements and is otherwise acceptable. This local validation process will be similar for each clerk’s office.
4.1.12. Document Fidelity and Authenticity
All documents filed electronically must be printable as paper documents without loss of content or appearance. A mechanism must be provided to ensure the authenticity of the electronically filed document. This requires the ability to verify the identity of the filing entity and the ability to verify that a document has not been altered after the time it was transmitted by the filing entity.
4.1.13. Embedded Hyperlinks
Hyperlinks embedded within an e-filing should refer only to information within the same document, or to external documents or information sources that are known to be trustworthy and stable over long periods of time. Hyperlinks should not be used to refer to external documents or information sources that are likely to change.
4.1.14. Exhibits
Every implementation of e-filing must accommodate the submission of non-electronic documents or exhibits. Examples of articles include such documentary evidence as court approved forms, executed wills, and non-documentary items such as cassettes, video tapes, weapons, drugs, etc.
Each exhibit that is filed in a proceeding before the Court shall be in its original form or such form as permitted under Florida Statutes or court rules pertaining to the admission of evidence, except for copies of exhibits that are submitted as attachments to pleadings, unless otherwise agreed by the parties of record,.
4.1.15. Documents Exempt from Public Access
If a filer who electronically files a document containing information identified as exempt from public access pursuant to Rule 2.420, Florida Rules of Judicial Administration and applicable statute, the filer shall indicate that the document contains confidential information by placing the notation “confidential” in the comments section. Documents that are exempt or claimed to be exempt from public access shall be processed pursuant to Rule 2.420.
4.1.16. Archiving
Electronic documents must be stored in, or convertible to a format that maintains content appearance and can be archived in accordance with standards adopted by the Supreme Court of Florida.
4.1.17. Accommodation of Paper Submissions
Documents submitted to the court in paper form shall be converted to an electronic format to facilitate the creation of a single electronic case file.
4.1.18. Public Access
Public access to electronically filed documents must be provided in accordance with the judicial branch policy on access to court records. Electronic documents must comply with Section 4.4 of this document.
4.1.19. Self-Represented Litigants
Self-represented litigants shall be provided a means to file documents electronically
4.1.20. Adding a Party
The e-filing system will accept additional parties after the initial pleading is filed.
4.2. TECHNICAL FAILURE
4.2.1. Determination of failure and effect on due date
The clerk shall deem the E-Filing System to be subject to a technical failure on a given day if the clerk’s server is unable to receive and accept filings in accordance with these efiling operational polices, either continuously or intermittently over the course of any period of time after 12:00 noon that amounts in the aggregate to more than one hour on that day. In the event of a technical failure, filings due that day which were not filed due solely to such technical failures shall be considered as due the next business day. Delayed filings shall be rejected unless they are accompanied by a declaration or affidavit attesting to the filer’s attempts to file electronically that failed after 12:00 P.M. on at least two occasions that are separated by at least one hour due to such technical failure.
4.2.2. Procedure Where Notice of Electronic Filing Not Received
If a Notice of Electronic Filing is not received from the clerk in response to a transmission of a document for filing, the document will not be deemed filed. The person making the filing must attempt to refile the information electronically until such a Notice is received. Persons who file electronically bear the responsibility of ensuring that documents and other filings are electronically filed and received.
4.2.3. Retransmission of Electronic Filing
If, within 24 hours after filing information electronically, any filer discovers that the version of the document available for viewing through the Electronic Case Filing System is incomplete, garbled or otherwise does not conform to the document as transmitted when it was filed, that filer shall notify the clerk immediately and retransmit the filing if necessary.
4.2.4. System Availability and Recovery Planning
Computer systems that are used for e-filings must protect electronically filed documents against system and security failures during periods of system availability. Additionally, contingencies for system failures and disaster recovery mechanisms must be established. Scheduled downtime for maintenance and updates should be planned, and a notification shall be provided to filers in advance of the outage. Planned outages shall occur outside normal business hours as determined by the Chief Judicial Administrative Officer of the Court. E-filing systems shall comply with the security and backup policies created by the Florida Courts Technology Commission.
Plan 1: Contingency Plan
Timeframe: Immediate - during normal working hours.
Scope: Localized system failures while court is still open and operational. This plan will also be put into operation while COOP and Disaster Plans are under way.
Operational Levels: Levels of operation will be temporarily limited and may be conducted in electronic or manual processes. Since court will still be open, this plan must address how documents will be received while the system is down.
Objectives:
• Allow the Court to continue with minimum delays by providing a temporary alternate solution for access to court files.
• Conduct tests to verify the restoration process.
• Have local and local off site backup of the operating system, application software, and user data available for immediate recovery operations.
• Identify areas where redundancy is required to reduce downtime, and provide for hot standby equipment that can be utilized in the event the Contingency Plan is activated.
Plan 2: Business Continuity/Disaster Recovery
Timeframe: Disaster dependent, varies.
Scope: Declared disasters either local or regional that impact the geographic area. Operational Levels: Temporarily unavailable or limited until facilities are deemed functional or alternate facilities can be established. Mission Essential Functions defined the Court’s COOP for the affected area must be addressed in the designated priorities and timeframes.
Objectives:
• Allow court operations to recover in the existing location or alternate facility
• Provide cooperative efforts with impacted entities to establish access to court files and allow for the continuance of court proceedings
• Provide in the Contingency Plan a temporary method to meet or exceed Mission Essential Functions identified in the Court’s COOP.
• Provide another tier level of recoverability by having a backup copy of the operating system, application software, and user data in a protected environment outside of the local area not subject to the same risks as the primary location for purposes of recovery according to standards approved by the FCTC.
• This plan may provide another out-of-state tier for data backup provided that the non-local in-state tier is established.
4.3. CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDED COURT REQUIREMENTS
4.3.1. Access
The clerk will provide free public access to court records as authorized in state statutes and in Rule 2.420, Florida Rules of Judicial Administration to the electronic case file according to statute or rule of court or Administrative Order of the Supreme Court.
The clerk will provide access to dockets, calendars and other electronic court records as authorized by statute or rule of court or Administrative Order of the Supreme Court.
4.4. ADA AND TECHNOLOGY COMPLIANCE
Accessibility Requirements
Accessibility standards for electronic and information technology are covered by federal law, known as Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (as amended), which lists standards necessary to make electronic and information technology accessible to persons with disabilities. These standards, together with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Florida law, must be met. References to these requirements throughout this document will be noted as “Section 508, Florida law and the ADA”.
The following list provides reference information for understanding the requirements of Section 508, Florida law and the ADA:
• Chapters 282.601-282.606, Fla. Stat. – The Florida Accessible Electronic and Information Technology Act
• Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (as amended) – United States Federal Access Board: Electronic & Information Technology Accessibility Standards (http://www.access-board.gov/gs.htm)
• The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)
• Other reference sources of information may include:
• World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Web Access Initiative Guidelines (http://www.w3.org/)
• ADA Best Practices Tool Kit for State and Local Governments – Chapter 5, Website accessibility Under Title II of the ADA:
http://www.ada.gov/pcatoolkit/chap5toolkit.htm
• Section 508 – (http://www.section508.gov)
All technology and information used to support creation of an electronic case file and to provide access to court records will comply with court technology standards, and the Florida AeIT Bill [Accessible Electronic and Information Technology], s. 282.601-282.606. Fla. Stat.
Additionally, all e-filing applications submitted for approval include a “Statement of Accessibility/Certification.”
5.0. ELECTRONIC SERVICE
By signing the Electronic Filing Registration Form, a filer consents to receive notice electronically, and waives the right to receive notice by personal service or first class mail of any document filed electronically, except with regard to service of a complaint or summons or other filing that requires personal service. This registration form does not constitute consent to electronic service of a document that is not filed with the Court. However, written consent to electronic service of such documents may be given separately.
There may be a need to later define a process by which the clerk’s office can address “an emergency” e-filing.
5.1. Computation of Time
The Court should adopt a standard that establishes when an e-filing is accomplished for purposes of the court record.
6.0. DELIVERY OF ELECTRONIC CASE FILES
An electronic case file being utilized by the court should meet or exceed the capabilities and ease of use currently provided by a paper case file. Electronic documents shall be available to court officers and personnel in a manner that provides timely and easy access. In addition, the electronic display should present information to courtroom participants that enables any person to immediately retrieve docket and case-specific information in a manner that is no more difficult than paging through a paper file. The application shall not have a negative operational impact on the court. Therefore the court shall have the opportunity to review and approve any changes to the current business process before the system may be implemented.
To meet the basic requirements of timeliness in a court environment, access to electronic court records should be almost instantaneous with a retrieval time of one to three seconds for cases on the daily calendar, five to eight seconds for cases that have had activity during the past 60 days, and 30 seconds for closed or inactive cases. The system should provide some method to notify the requesting entity if a longer time delay will occur, such as when a case has been archived.
Simultaneous access for multiple courtroom participants to view the same case file and/or document shall be provided.
Monitors shall be of sufficient size to allow comfortable viewing of electronic documents. There shall be a method to search for and select specific documents for viewing. Regardless of the document retrieval techniques employed, a viewer should have the ability to quickly page through an electronic document or a case file.
Forms and documents that a judge or other courtroom personnel normally prepare during a particular proceeding should be electronically prepared, reviewed, signed, printed, and distributed as another function supported by the automated electronic case management system.
Any system that intends to deliver electronic files instead of paper files to the judiciary must have the electronic workflow, functionality, and electronic judicial document management service approved by the judiciary before paper may be discontinued. The electronic file created by the clerk shall be made available and delivered to the judiciary in a manner that provides improved workflow and document management service to the judiciary and court staff. Filings in an electronic file that is created or updated by any system shall be available for viewing by the court immediately upon acceptance by the clerk.
According to the NCSC document Standards for Electronic Filing Processes (Technical and Business Approaches) -
“to avoid the unintended connotation associated with the term “electronic filing” that may be interpreted as referring only to the process by which documents are submitted to a court for filing.
That is only one part of a mature, full blown electronic documents process. Focusing only upon the initial filing aspect runs the risk of losing most of the potential benefits of electronic filing. At the extreme, the failure to look at electronic filing as part of a much larger process can result in an expensive system that is of little utility to court users such as judges, lawyers, litigants, and court staff. Electronic Filing Processes is also preferable to “Electronic Court Documents” which might apply simply to court imaging systems that create electronic documents by scanning paper filings. “Electronic Court documents” would also include standards for document management systems, which are not within the scope of these standards. Electronic Filing Processes incorporate scanning of paper documents, but only as an ancillary process for capturing historical documents not created for the purpose of litigation and for converting paper documents submitted by parties incapable of using electronic filing means. An Electronic Filing Process relies upon submission of the great bulk of documents in electronic form without requiring the routine use of paper at any step in the process.
7.0. ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES
7.1. Signatures of Registered Users
A pleading or other document is not required to bear the electronic image of the handwritten signature or an encrypted signature of the filer, but may be signed in the following manner when electronically filed through a registered user’s login and password.
s/ John Doe
John Doe (e-mail address)
Bar Number 12345
Attorney for (Plaintiff/Defendant) XYZ Company
ABC Law Firm
123 South Street
Orlando, FL 32800
Telephone: (407) 123-4567
7.2. Multiple Attorneys of Record Signatures
The following procedure applies when a stipulation or other document (e.g., a joint motion) requires the signatures of two or more attorneys of record: The filing attorney shall initially confirm that the content of the document is acceptable to all attorneys required to sign the document and shall obtain the signatures of all attorneys on the document. For purposes of this procedure, physical, facsimile, or electronic signatures are permitted. The filing attorney then shall file the document electronically, indicating the signatories, (e.g., “s/ Jane Doe,” “s/ John Smith,” etc.) for each attorney’s signature.
7.3. Original Documents and/or Handwritten Signatures
Original documents (Death Certificates, etc.) or those that contain original signatures such as affidavits, deeds, mortgages and wills must be filed manually until the court has determined the digital format by which these issues are addressed.
7.4. Judge Signature
Judges are authorized to electronically sign all orders and judgments indicating the signature as (s/ Jane Doe, Circuit Court Judge).
8.0. CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM DESIGN FRAMEWORK
Overview
In pursuit of the mission and vision of the Florida Judicial Branch, the courts are committed to an effective, responsive and accountable judicial system. While understanding that the quality of justice cannot be measured solely by statistics and reports, the court believes that case information is critical to its efficient management of judicial cases and it should form one cornerstone of sound court management. To that end, the Florida court system must establish a uniform statewide case management system that will provide reliable and accurate case data. Section 16 of Senate Bill 1718 requests that the court establish standards for electronic filing including the “... duties of the clerks of court and the judiciary for case management.” This section addresses case management.
A case management system can broadly be considered the set of functional standards and requirements and the resultant collection of programs, utilities, and protocols that collectively provide for initiation, processing, tracking management and reporting of cases through the judicial system. In addition to enabling the efficient flow of day to day operations, an effective case management system must provide for comprehensive and uniform reporting of case level and court activity data as required for overall court management. This critical collection and reporting component ensures fundamental accountability for efficient and effective management of court activity at all levels of the courts.
This case management system framework design contains sufficient detail to provide immediate guidance to clerks of court and other stakeholders with respect to their duties and responsibilities to the court while remaining general enough to provide for the incremental development required for this complex project. The framework builds upon existing case management work and strives to present a consistent method for system development. It presents a standard definition for a case management system and outlines the guiding design principles to be applied at all levels. Applying these principles will ensure a viable case management system that encapsulates flexibility, modularity, consistency, quality, reporting and accountability, and accessibility. This case management system is expected to incorporate case maintenance as well as case management functionality.
Appellate Case Management
Although the legislature did not specifically direct the clerks of the appellate courts to commence electronic filing by October 1, 2009, providing the appellate courts with electronic courts capability is equally important. The appellate courts and the Supreme Court cannot accept electronic records from appeals from the trial courts if they do not have the capacity to receive and store documents electronically. In any appellate electronic filing and case management system, additional functionality must be included. Particularly, collaboration elements are essential to any appellate court system, as all decisions require review by at least three judges in the appellate courts and more in the Supreme Court. The appellate courts have already attempted to design a system but funding issues prevented further development. They are currently exploring other systems. Additional funding will be necessary to make the appellate courts and the Supreme Court electronic, but the investment will save operational costs just as it will in the trial courts.
Design Guidelines
The case management system design shall be based upon the work of the Florida Courts Technology Commission as codified in Supreme Court Administrative Order AOSC03-16, IN RE: Adoption of Functional Requirement, Technical Standards and Strategic Plan. Clerks of court and court administration should submit design and implementation plans to the Florida Courts Technology Commission for review and approval before software or hardware is purchased or system development begins. Key concepts in the design of this uniform case management system are flexibility, modularity, consistency and quality. The complexity of a uniform system dictates that it be developed as an interoperable suite of component modules such as e-filing or civil case management, rather than as one monolithic application. To ensure that users obtain the most benefit from this system as quickly as possible, design managers must ensure that each component provides significant, if not full, functionality without critical dependence on other, as yet undeveloped, components. Interoperability and independence require that each component include the intrinsic capability to share data and other common resources in a consistent manner across all components of the system.
Such interoperability is a challenge, given that the case management needs of the various divisions of court and of court programs differ significantly. However, every effort should be made to define a common framework upon which the case processing components for each division of court and court program can be based. For example, existing standards define a cross divisional case flow with the following common functional components:
• Case Initiation and Indexing
• Docketing and Related Record Keeping Function
• Schedule and Case Management
• Ticklers, User Alerts & Automated Workflow and Forms Generation
• Document Processing
• Calendaring
• Hearings
• Disposition
• Case Closure
• Accounting
• Audit Trail Management
• File Archival and Destruction
• Document Management
• Exhibit Management
• Statistical Reports
• Management Reports
• Electronic Designation of Appellate Records
The technical standards and plan described in Administrative Order AOSC03-16 is a solid starting point for the development work ahead. However, like all systems which serve the public, court processes and court needs evolve over time in response to changes in statutes, other law, court rules and best practices. As each component of the overall case management system is developed, systems design managers should review the above standards for applicability and update requirements and standards as necessary. Also, as the functional requirements and technical standards encapsulated in AOSC03-16 were developed in 2003, the system design managers should, as a first planning step, conduct a complete review and update of the cross functional requirements to ensure that they have a comprehensive, up-to-date picture of common elements upon which to base a uniform system design.
Actual implementation of the uniform case management system components may require additions or deletions to these specifications to ensure that the final system is relevant to the case and data management issues facing court managers today and in the future. However, frequent changes, even those that are considered necessary, can negatively impact systems development and usability leading to inefficient or ineffective systems. The development plan for each component should provide for periodic expansion cycles to ensure that the case management system remains responsive to evolving court needs and to changes in statutes or rules of court.
One purpose of any case management system is to facilitate the administration of case activity within the courts and to provide court managers with the supporting information that is necessary to effectively manage that activity. Consequently, it is critical that the system remain relevant to its users at all levels of court. This is achieved by recognizing the information needs of the users and by facilitating the addition of new elements as required through a well defined and responsive expansion process. Data that is collected should be available in a timeframe that best fits the needs of the users. The system should provide the capability for case management users to easily extract data or perform non-standard query actions as required by emerging needs.
As an integral aspect of general design, system development should incorporate quality elements such as specific input data validations and mechanisms for monitoring and correcting data that fail validation as close to the input level as possible. Data should be checked for inadmissible data combinations, incompatible data, and missing data. The system should provide for the straightforward correction of data at the level closest to origination which includes the point of document submission. This will increase the likelihood that data will be accurate and reliable and reduce the amount of effort that must be expended to ensure that accuracy. Additionally, the case management system should provide for macro level quality evaluation including audit trails, automated checks and reasonableness reviews by subject matter experts. System design should ensure that conducting these evaluations on a regular basis is a simple and straightforward process.
All case management system components should be designed to easily allow for two-way sharing of data with other internal system components and with external sources at the state or national level. Wherever possible, the case management system should implement statewide and national standard concepts and classifications and a common methodology for data representation and transfer. This would allow data from multiple sources both within and without the court system to interoperate seamlessly within the context of case management and reporting.
Current Data Collection Systems
Existing data collection systems provide critical management data to the courts at all levels. The modular nature of the development process for a case management system requires the careful consideration of existing reporting requirements to ensure that completion of one component of the system does not inadvertently reduce the quality or quantity of data currently collected. The court has several critical data collection and reporting mechanisms currently in place, such as are detailed in Florida Rules of Judicial Administration 2.240, 2.245 and 2.250 and §25.075, Florida Statutes and other relevant rules and statutes. These reporting mechanisms cannot and should not be abandoned prematurely. Although every effort will be made to consolidate data collection and reporting mechanisms during the development process, clerks of court, circuit court administration and other reporting entities should expect to continue data collection and reporting under the appropriate guidelines until directed otherwise by the courts.
Security and Confidentiality
All case management components should employ the utmost care in ensuring the confidentiality of case records as appropriate and at all levels of case and data processing. Redaction software should be deployed as appropriate to ensure that confidentiality is protected on display or archive. Appropriate security and encryption measures should be built into the system so that the transfer and storage of data within the system does not expose sensitive data to unauthorized access. Statutory requirements for retention, availability, display and purging of cases that are sealed or expunged or otherwise restricted should be strictly and programmatically enforced. System design should provide for the secure deletion of case records as necessary across separate system components.
Other Standards
As individual case management components are developed, similar work at the national level should be considered. For example, the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) has identified the general movement of a case through the judicial system as presented in their “Introduction to Function Standards, Draft February 2, 2001.” The NCSC has also provided a series of general Case Management Standards which may serve as a resource in the development process. However, no uniformly accepted national standards exist. Consequently, systems design methodology managers should review the standards articulated by the National Center for State Courts in their Case Management Standards (http://www.ncsconline.org/d_tech/standards/default.asp) for applicability to individual case management components and incorporate those standards which are determined to be relevant to an efficient and effective Florida case management system.
9.0. GOVERNANCE
A Governance Structure shall be established to make certain that initiatives regarding electronic access to the court meet established standards, maximize and/or improve workflow processes, improve accessibility to the court, and allow stakeholders to communicate in a manner that allows for effective integration of systems. Governance shall be established by the Court once recommendations by the Florida Courts Technology Commission have been received.
Efforts to integrate systems such as e-filing and case management offer many opportunities to be more cost effective and efficient. Integration brings with it the critical need to have collaboration among stakeholders who share an interest in using the information, content of information, and the functionality of software applications. The introduction of new systems or changes to existing systems with the goal to improve processes may also bring with it unintended negative impact upon others who have a shared interest or need.
The goals of governance are the following:
1. Governance provides a process whereby new systems or major changes to existing systems may be vetted to maximize workflow and to reduce potential negative impact and implementation issues.
2. Governance provides a process to verify that at all times the system meets required standards and rules, so that the person who seeks to acquire new systems or change an existing system may seek and receive approval to do so.
3. Governance provides a means for needed changes in business workflow to be accepted and implemented into the organizational culture.
The FCTC will draft a proposed rule of judicial administration to address how governance will be implemented within the judicial branch.
AOSC 10-32
AOSC 10-32 | IN RE: INTERIM POLICY ON ELECTRONIC APPELLATE COURT RECORDS
Based on recommendations of the Florida Courts Technology Commission, this Court has approved various applications of electronic technology for use in Florida’s trial and appellate courts. Approved applications of technology in various Florida trial courts have enabled the clerks of those tribunals to make and maintain some court records in electronic form. These electronic court records are available for use in the appellate courts, to the advantage of the litigants, counsel, and appellate court personnel, thereby resulting in potential savings for the expense of using and storing the court records in paper form.
However, current rules of court procedure do not authorize appellate courts to utilize these electronic trial court records as the Record on Appeal, thereby necessitating the duplicative transmission and use of both paper and electronic records. The Appellate Court Technology Committee has recommended that court records of proceedings in a lower tribunal that are made or maintained in electronic form should be accepted by Florida appellate courts. The Florida Courts Technology Commission concurs in that recommendation.
Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that:
• fully searchable PDF, not indexed; or
• PDF, but not searchable.
2. When determined to be feasible by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court or the chief judge of a district court of appeal, the Chief Justice or chief judge may exercise his or her administrative authority to dispense with the requirement for a paper copy of the Record on Appeal to be submitted with the electronic version transmitted to the appellate court by the clerk of the lower tribunal.
3. Effective February 1, 2011, any filing by an attorney in one of the district courts of appeal or the Supreme Court of Florida shall be in digital format as well as in paper. The clerk of the respective appellate court shall publish instructions on the manner in which these electronic documents will be submitted.
4. When determined to be feasible by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Florida or the chief judge of a district court of appeal, the Chief Justice or chief judge may exercise his or her administrative authority to dispense with the requirement for a paper copy to be submitted with the digital document filed by an attorney.
| |
| Chief Justice Peggy A. Quince | |
| ATTEST: | |
| |
| Thomas D. Hall Clerk, Supreme Court |
Thomas D. Hall, Clerk of Court
AOSC 10-33
AOSC 10-33 | IN RE: TRIAL COURT BUDGET COMMISSION
The terms of the chair and vice chair have expired. The Court expresses its appreciation and admiration for the distinguished service rendered by The Honorable Belvin Perry, Jr. as Commission Chair and The Honorable Charles A. Francis as Commission Vice Chair. Judge Perry and Judge Francis will continue to serve as members of the Commission.
The Honorable John Laurent is appointed as Commission Chair and The Honorable Margaret Steinbeck is appointed as Commission Vice-Chair through June 30, 2012.
The Honorable Judy M. Pittman has resigned from the Trial Court Budget Commission. The following individual is appointed to complete the remainder of Judge Pittman’s term on the Commission, which expires on November 30, 2010:
Circuit Judge
Fourteenth Judicial Circuit
DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on July 1, 2010.
|  |
| Chief Justice Charles T. Canady | |
| ATTEST: | |
| |
| Thomas D. Hall, Clerk of Court |
Thomas D. Hall, Clerk of Court
AOSC 10-47
AOSC 10-47 | IN RE: COMMISSION ON DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Court committees are a vital component in the governance of the judicial branch. Committees established by the Supreme Court assist in the development of policies and operating procedures that enhance the administration of justice. In recent years, as a result of the global recession and the subsequent decline in state financial resources, the Florida State Courts System has sustained significant reductions in operating funds and staff positions. Even given the demanding fiscal times we are in, work of the Commission on District Court of Appeal Performance and Accountability must proceed.
The Commission must, however, be cognizant of the limitations on the resources available to support its efforts as it develops a work plan that will accomplish, to the best of the Commission’s abilities, the important tasks assigned in this administrative order. Accordingly, the chair should use discretion in the establishment of subcommittees that require operating funds and staff support. With regard to meetings, the Commission on District Court of Appeal Performance and Accountability should strive to utilize the most economical means appropriate to the type of work being accomplished.
During the next two years, the Commission is expected to perform the following tasks:
2. Continue to monitor dependency and termination of parental rights case data and provide recommendations for improving case management practices. Collaborate with the multi-disciplinary dependency court improvement panel as needed.
3. Continue to review district court case management information and ensure the establishment of uniform data definitions and uniform reporting procedures, as needed. Work with the Appellate Court Technology Committee regarding any revisions to the district court case management system that may impact the definitions and/or reporting of district court data.
4. Continue to propose judicial branch responses to any statutory requirements and requests by the Florida Legislature and the Office of the Governor related to district court performance and accountability.
Judge, Second District Court of Appeal
Mr. Ty W. Berdeaux
Marshal, Fifth District Court of Appeal
Ms. Mary Cay Blanks
Clerk, Third District Court of Appeal
The Honorable Jay P. Cohen
Judge, Fifth District Court of Appeal
Mr. Thomas D. Hall
Clerk, Florida Supreme Court
The Honorable Vance Salter
Judge, Third District Court of Appeal
The Honorable William A. Van Nortwick
Judge, First District Court of Appeal
The Honorable Martha C. Warner
Judge, Fourth District Court of Appeal
The Commission on District Court of Appeal Performance and Accountability is authorized to propose amendments to rules of court procedure on issues involving the operational efficiency and effectiveness of the district courts, for consideration by the Court. Should the Commission recommend amendments to the rules of court procedure or forms, it shall file such recommendations in petition form with the Clerk of the Florida Supreme Court.
Should the Commission on District Court of Appeal Performance and Accountability make recommendations that require additional funding or resources to implement, the Commission is directed to establish the necessary liaison relationship with the District Court of Appeal Budget Commission or the Trial Court Budget Commission, as appropriate. At a minimum, the Commission shall provide the chair of the respective budget commission with copies of Commission reports and recommendations that reference the need for additional court funding or resources, prior to the finalization of those reports.
Should the Commission on District Court of Appeal Performance and Accountability make recommendations about the education and training needs of judges and court staff, the Commission is directed to establish the necessary liaison relationships with the Florida Court Education Council. At a minimum, the Commission shall provide the Chair of the Florida Court Education Council with copies of Commission reports and recommendations that reference court education, prior to the finalization of those reports.
The Judicial Branch Governance Study Group was established in the fall of 2009 and directed by the Supreme Court to undertake an in-depth study of the current governance system of the judicial branch of Florida. There is a possibility the results of that initiative may necessitate a re-evaluation of this administrative order, at a future date.
The Honorable William A. Van Nortwick shall serve as chair through June 30, 2012. The Honorable Ricky L. Polston shall continue to serve as the Supreme Court’s liaison to the Commission. Staff support will be provided by the Office of the State Courts Administrator.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on August 20, 2010.
| |
| Chief Justice Charles T. Canady | |
| ATTEST: | |
| |
| Thomas D. Hall, Clerk of Court |
Thomas D. Hall, Clerk of Court
AOSC 13-7
AOSC 13-7 | ELECTRONIC FILING IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA VIA THE FLORIDA COURTS E-FILING PORTAL ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER
1. Effective 12:01 a.m., Wednesday, February 27, 2013, e-filing through the Portal in the Court will be optional for all attorneys.
2. Effective 12:01 a.m., Monday, April 1, 2013, e-filing through the Portal in the Court will be mandatory for all attorneys.
3. The URL address for the Portal is www.myflcourtaccess.com. Prior to filing, each filer will be required to register for a password secured Portal account. Once assigned a user name and password, it is the responsibility of the filer to safeguard his or her username and password to prevent unauthorized filings. Any electronic filings received via the filer’s username are presumed to have been submitted by the filer.
4. Informational training videos about appellate court filings using the Portal are available for all users at http://www.flclerks.com/eFiling_authority.html.
5. Documents may be submitted in an Adobe portable document format (“PDF”), Microsoft Word 97 or higher, or Corel WordPerfect or other format which may be later specified by the Court.
6. The filing date shall be the date of receipt by the Portal. Pleadings filed electronically will automatically have the Court’s time/date stamp electronically affixed along the top of the first page of the document. Filers should leave a sufficient margin on the first page to accommodate the Court’s time/date stamp. Filers must submit pleadings so that they are properly oriented to be read without needing to be rotated (such as on their side or upside-down).
7. When making filings the user should follow instructions provided through the Portal and select the appropriate document type when prompted. Each separate pleading or document filed electronically through the Portal must be submitted as a single complete document. Likewise, multiple documents must be submitted as separate documents.
a. For example, a brief should NOT be filed in separate parts such as the cover page as one filing, the table of contents as a second filing, the table of citations as a third filing and the body of the brief as a fourth filing. A brief is a single document and must be filed as a single filing as a Mandatory Document as indicated within the Portal.
b. If a pleading consists of more than one document (such as an appendix), each document should be filed as an Optional Document as indicated within the Portal.
c. If a separate type of filing is submitted at the same time (such as a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees), it should be filed as an Optional Document as indicated within the Portal.
d. If any document filed is larger than the limitation size indicated on the Documents page of the Portal, it must be broken into parts that will then be numbered and attached as Volumes of that document as indicated within the Portal.
8. Letters and correspondence addressed to the Court or the Clerk of the Court, including transmittal and cover letters, are not permitted to be filed electronically with the Court and may not be included with electronic pleadings.
9. The electronic copy of a document is not required to contain the attorney’s original signature, but may include an electronic signature indicator in the form of /s/ [name] on the appropriate signature line. Submission of a document to the Portal by a registered attorney will constitute a notice of appearance in the case by that attorney if an appearance in the case has not previously been made. By submitting a document to the Portal, an attorney certifies that he or she is complying with all rules of procedure regarding service to his or her opponents or other parties — the Portal is not currently able to provide electronic service to or for parties — in compliance with Rule 2.516 of the Rules of Judicial Administration.
10. After a document has been electronically filed through the Portal, confirmation will be automatically emailed to the filer at his or her registered email address(s) confirming receipt by the Court.
11. Once an electronic filing has been submitted to the Court through the Portal, it becomes a filing with the Court. Court filings will be docketed in the case after processing by the Clerk’s Office during regular business hours unless the electronic filing is not docketed based on a deficiency. The filer will be notified and may then re-file after correcting the deficiency.
12. If the filer discovers after submitting the document that there is a mistake, he or she must file an amended filing as well as a motion requesting that the Court accept the amended filing. To avoid multiple filings of the same document, filers should carefully review their filings before submitting them to the Portal.
13. Failure to comply with this order may result in the filing being stricken and the case being dismissed or the filing being stricken and submission of the case to the Court without the benefit of the filing. If, for any reason, a party is unable to comply with this order, counsel must file a motion as a separate document with the paper original brief or pleading setting forth the reasons for which counsel cannot comply and requesting a hardship exception.
14. No paper copy of any document filed through the Portal by an attorney is required to be filed and will not be accepted by the Court, absent a specific order by the Court. Any requirement for the filing of multiple paper copies that may remain in the rules of procedure is discontinued.
15. Documents that have been filed through the Portal will no longer be accepted via email as provided in Administrative Order 04-84.
16. Non-attorney parties and attorneys not in good standing with The Florida Bar are currently not permitted to file through the Portal at this time and must continue to file in paper format pursuant to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure and the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration; however, the additional copies to be filed with the Court prescribed by the rules are no longer required.
17. Members of The Florida Bar are requested to remain diligent in keeping track of updated requirements regarding filing through the Portal. Additional Administrative Orders may issue as required and will be posted on this Court’s web site at: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/adminorders/index.shtml.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on February 18, 2013.
Ricky Polston, Chief Justice
Thomas D. Hall, Clerk of Court
AOSC 14-2
AOSC 14-2 | IN RE: DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL BUDGET COMMISSION
Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.235 was recently amended to provide that the president of the District Court of Appeal Judges Conference shall serve as an ex officio nonvoting member of the commission. Accordingly, The Honorable Melanie G. May is hereby appointed to serve as a nonvoting member of the commission, effective September 10, 2013, nunc pro tunc, and extending through the duration of her term as president of the conference.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on January 28, 2014.
|  |
| Chief Justice Ricky Polston | |
| ATTEST: | |
 | |
| John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court |
John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court
AOSC 14-17
AOSC 14-17 | IN RE: JUROR SELECTION PLAN: ALACHUA COUNTY
The use of technology in the selection of jurors has been customary within Florida for more than 20 years and the Supreme Court has developed standards necessary to ensure that juror selection plans satisfy statutory, methodological, and due process requirements. The Court has tasked the Office of the State Courts Administrator with evaluating proposed plans to determine their compliance with those standards.
On February 28, 2014, the Clerk of the Circuit Court for Alachua County submitted the Alachua County Juror Selection Plan for review and approval in accordance with section 40.225(2), Florida Statutes. The proposed plan reflects changes to both hardware and software used for juror pool selection in Alachua County.
The Office of the State Courts Administrator has completed an extensive review of the proposed Alachua County Juror Selection Plan, including an evaluation of statutory, due process, statistical, and mathematical elements associated with selection of jury candidates. The plan meets established requirements for approval.
Accordingly, the attached Alachua County Juror Selection Plan, submitted on February 28, 2014, by The Honorable J. K. Irby, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Alachua County, and approved by The Honorable Robert E. Roundtree, Chief Judge of the Eighth Judicial Circuit, is hereby approved for use.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on March 11, 2014.
| |
| Chief Justice Ricky Polston | |
| ATTEST: | |
| |
| John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court |
John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court
AOSC 14-19
AOSC 14-19 | STANDARDS FOR ACCESS TO ELECTRONIC COURT RECORDS1/
The Court also adopted new rules and amendments to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420 to minimize the presence of sensitive and confidential information in court records, require filers to identify and protect confidential information in their pleadings, and narrow the scope of statutory exemptions applicable to court records to a standard list of twenty exemptions subject to automatic redaction by the clerks of court. See In re: Amendments to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420 and the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, 31 So. 3d 756 (Fla. 2010); In re: Amendments to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420, 124 So. 3d 819 (Fla. 2013); and In re: Implementation of Committee on Privacy and Court Records Recommendations – Amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure; the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration; the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure; the Florida Probate Rules; the Florida Small Claims Rules; the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure; and the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure, 78 So. 3d 1045 (Fla. 2011).
During this time period, the Court also adopted standards and rules to implement e-filing and e-service in the trial and appellate courts, significantly moving the courts toward a fully electronic, mostly paperless environment. See In re: Statewide Standards for Electronic Access to the Courts, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC09-30 (July 1, 2009); In re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Florida Probate Rules, the Florida Small Claims Rules, the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure, the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, and the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure – Electronic Filing, 102 So. 3d 451 (Fla. 2012); In re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Florida Probate Rules, the Florida Rules of Traffic Court, the Florida Small Claims Rules, the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure, the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, and the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedures – E-Mail Service Rules, 102 So. 3d 505 (Fla. 2012); and In re: Amendments to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.516, 112 So. 3d 1173 (Fla. 2013).
The Florida Courts Technology Commission (hereinafter “FCTC”) has recommended approval and adoption of the Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records and Access Security Matrix in accordance with its authority under Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.236 to “establish, periodically review and update technical standards for technology used and to be used in the judicial branch to receive, manage, maintain, use, secure and distribute court records by electronic means, consistent with technology policies established by the supreme court.” Adoption of the standards and matrix is the next logical step toward responsible public access to electronic court records.
The standards and matrix, developed by the Governance Access Board under the authority of FCTC, provide a carefully structured mechanism to facilitate appropriate, differentiated levels of access to court records to members of the general public and user groups with specialized credentials, and judges and court and clerks’ office staff, based upon governing statutes and court rules. The standards and matrix are based upon a model developed by the Manatee County Clerk of Court for a pilot program that operated from 2007 to 2011 under Supreme Court supervision and oversight. That program was determined to have been successful in providing appropriate access to electronic court records while effectively protecting confidential information in an evaluation performed by the National Center for State Courts in 2011.
Clerks currently providing limited online Internet access, pursuant to the authority of AOSC07-49, may continue to provide that service so long as the clerk applies to FCTC’s Access Governance Board for approval to provide online access consistent with this amended administrative order within 60 days from its issuance; otherwise the clerk shall terminate such limited online Internet access currently provided pursuant to AOSC07-49.
As part of the process of implementing the standards and matrix, a statewide pilot program will monitor and coordinate all established clerk initiatives relating to online access to electronic court records. Under the pilot program, each clerk or circuit court will apply to FCTC’s Access Governance Board, through the Office of the State Courts Administrator, for approval by the FCTC of its electronic records access system. Within 120 days from approval of the clerk’s initial application, a 90-day pilot program must begin and, at the end of such pilot, the clerk shall be fully compliant with this administrative order. After establishing compliance with the requirements of the standards and matrix adopted herein, the clerk shall request approval to provide online access to electronic court records. As the certification process is implemented, the Court will review for approval each clerk’s certification request to ensure that sufficient security measures are in place.
Access to electronic court records presently is governed by the restrictions imposed by In re: Revised Interim Policy on Electronic Release of Court Records, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC07-49 (Sept. 7, 2007). The Court hereby adopts the Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records and Access Security Matrix, as amended by the Court, to supersede the restrictions imposed by AOSC07-49. The Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records and Access Security Matrix are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.2/
The Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records and Access Security Matrix shall be effective upon the signing of this administrative order. No other electronic access may be provided other than pursuant to this administrative order.
DONE AND ORDERED, nunc pro tunc, to March 19, 2014, at Tallahassee, Florida, on May 23, 2014.
Ricky Polston, Chief Justice
John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court
Footnotes
2/ The Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records and the Access Security Matrix are also available on the Florida Courts website. See http://www.flcourts.org/resources-and-services/court-technology/technologystandards.stml.
Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records
March 2014
These standards establish statewide technical and operational requirements for access to electronic court records by the public, special user groups, judges, and court and clerk’s office personnel. These standards also implement the Access Security Matrix, which governs remote web-based and clerks’ office access to electronic court records.ACCESS METHODS
There are three different methods for accessing electronic court records:
1. Direct access via application to internal live data;
2. Web-based application for replicated or live data with security;
3. Web-based portal for public viewing of replicated data and variable levels of security based on user role.
Direct or web-based access to live production data is generally limited to court and clerk officers and authorized court and clerk’s office personnel. Most users will access replicated data to protect the integrity and availability of the official court record maintained by the clerk.
ACCESS SECURITY MATRIX
The Access Security Matrix (the “Matrix”) appended to these standards governs access to electronic court records based upon user roles and applicable rules, statutes, and administrative policies. The Matrix performs the following functions:
1. Establishes user groups;
2. Establishes access levels;
3. Assigns access level for each user group based on case type;
4. Assigns access level for all docket codes.
The Access Governance Board, under the authority of the Florida Courts Technology Commission (the “FCTC”), is responsible for maintaining the Matrix by timely incorporating legislative and rule changes that impact access to electronic court records. Access permitted under the Matrix applies equally to electronic and paper court records.
USER GROUPS
Access to electronic court records is determined by the user’s role and applicable statutes, rules, and administrative policy. Access may be restricted to certain user groups based on case type, document type, or information contained within records. All individuals and entities authorized under these standards to have greater access than the general public must establish policies to protect confidential records and information in accordance with applicable rule and statutory requirements. Remote electronic access may be more restrictive than clerk in-house electronic access.
| USER GROUPS | ACCESS PERMITTED | SECURITY REQUIREMENTS |
|---|---|---|
| Judges and authorized court and clerk’s office personnel | All court records, except those expunged pursuant to s. 943.0585, F.S., with discretionary limits based on local security policy. Each court and clerk must establish policies to ensure that access to confidential records and information is limited to those individuals who require access in performance of their official duties. Access to records sealed pursuant to s. 943.059(4), F.S., is permitted for judges to assist in performance of case-related adjudicatory responsibilities. | In-house secure network and secure web access. |
| Parties | All records in the party’s case except those that are expunged or sealed; access may be denied to information automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), or made confidential by court order, depending upon case type and the language of the order. | Secure access on case-by-case basis. Access by notarized request to insure identity of party. |
| General public | All records except those that are expunged or sealed, automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), or made confidential by court order. No remote access to images of records in cases governed by the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure, Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure, or Florida Probate Rules, pursuant to s. 28.2221(5)(a), F.S. | None. Anonymous web-based access permitted. |
| Individuals registered for subscriber service | All records except those that are expunged or sealed, automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), or made confidential by court order. Viewable on request remote access to images of records in cases governed by the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure, Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure, or Florida Probate Rules, pursuant to s. 28.2221(5)(a), F.S. | Secure access through user name and password by written notarized agreement. |
| Attorneys of record | All records except those that are expunged or sealed; access may be denied to records or information automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), or made confidential by court order, depending upon the type of case and the language of the court order. | Secure access through user name and password by written notarized agreement. |
| Authorized state or local government agencies | All records except those that are expunged or sealed, automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), or made confidential by court order. Access to social security numbers as permitted by ss. 119.071(5)(a)6.b. | Secure access through user name and password by written notarized agreement. Agency gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining authorized user list. |
| Certified law enforcement officers of federal or state law enforcement agencies, including state attorney’s offices, and state attorney general’s office | All records except those that are expunged or sealed, automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), or made confidential by court order. Access to social security numbers as permitted by ss. 119.07 Access to HIV test results as permitted by ss. 775.0877(2)(e), and 951.27 F.S., and 960.003, F.S. Access to sexually transmitted disease results as permitted by s. 384.29(1), F.S. Access to birth certificates as permitted by ss. 382.013(5) Access to mental health records as permitted by s. 916.107(8), F.S. Access to addresses of domestic violence victims, and identities of victims of sexual and child abuse when originating from law enforcement as permitted by s. 119.071(2), F.S. Access to children and families in need of services records as permitted by s. 984.06(3), F.S. Access to juvenile records as permitted by ss. 39.0132(4)(a)(1), F.S. Access to juvenile delinquency records as permitted by s. 985.04, F.S. Access limited to law enforcement personnel who require access in performance of their official job duties. | Secure access through user name and password by written notarized agreement. Agency gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining an authorized user list. |
| Department of Children and Families personnel, or authorized service providers of the agency | All records except those that are expunged or sealed, automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), Fla. R. Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order. Access to social security numbers as permitted by s. 119.071 Access to birth certificates as permitted by ss. 382.013(5) and 382.025(1)(a)5., F.S. Access to children and families in need of services records as permitted by s. 984.06(3), F.S. Access to juvenile records as permitted by s. 39.0132(3), F.S. Access to juvenile delinquency records as permitted by s. 985.04, F.S. Access to records is limited to agency personnel and service providers who require access in performance of their official job duties. | Secure access through user name and password by written notarized agreement. Agency gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining authorized user list. Each agency must establish policies to ensure that access to confidential records and information is limited to those individuals who require access in performance of their official duties. |
| Commercial purchasers of bulk records | All records except those that are expunged or sealed, automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), or made confidential by court order. Access to social security numbers as permitted by s. 119.071, F.S, | Secure access through user name and password by written notarized agreement. Commercial purchaser gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining an authorized user list. |
| Administrative | Access for administrative purposes only to manage accounts for an organization with multiple users | Secure access to maintain and update user accounts. Gatekeeper can represent an agency under a single notarized agreement. |
Access permitted to:
A. all but expunged; access to sealed records permitted judges to assist with case-related adjudicatory responsibilities
B. all but expunged or sealed, or automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1)
C. all but expunged or sealed, automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), or made confidential by court order;
D. all but expunged or sealed, automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), or made confidential by court order; images viewable upon request E. case number, party names, dockets only;
F. case number and party names only;
G. Case number only;
H. Viewable on request access level applies to documents containing confidential information that must be redacted; this access level requires examination of the case file by a clerk to identify and redact confidential information before the record can be viewed. Requests for judicial orders will be reviewed by the clerk for redaction or application of security protocols consistent with these standards. The order will be available to the requestor only after the redaction or application of security protocols have been implemented to protect the judicial signature.
Viewable on request access level applies to documents containing confidential information that must be redacted; this access level requires examination of the case file by a clerk to identify and redact confidential information before the record can be viewed.
SECURITY
No sensitive security information should be presented on the user interface. Sensitive data shall be exchanged over trusted paths or by using adequate encryption between users; between users and systems; and between systems. The system must employ appropriate security and encryption measures to prevent disclosure of confidential data to unauthorized persons.
Minimum Technical Requirements:
1. Encryption (general public and authenticated)**;
2. No cut and paste of workable links;
3. No access to live data; replicated records will be used for public access;
4. Authenticated access for access beyond general public access;
5. Monitor bulk data transfers to identify and mitigate abuses of the system by utilizing access programs using automated methods;
6. All metadata related to creator, editor and contributor must be stripped from the document.
**Encryption protects the integrity of the record and prevents exposure to potential security risks. It also prevents authenticated users with higher access from sending links to information to non-authorized users.
INTEGRITY OF THE COURT RECORD
To protect the integrity and availability of the court record, public access will not be to the original record, but to a replicated and redacted version of the record.
Links online shall be encrypted where a user may not be able to cut and paste a URL and get back to a page. Link refresh times shall be limited and time out.
REDACTION
Redaction is the process of obscuring confidential information contained within a public record from view. Redacted portions of a record are blacked out. Redaction may be accomplished manually or through use of technology such as redaction software. Redaction software is used when information is in electronic form. If redaction software is used, it must identify and protect confidential information through redaction of confidential content. For efficiency, redaction software is preferred over manual processes when the files are in electronic form.
There are generally two levels of redaction:
• Level 1 - The system reads the images and uses the knowledge base to auto-redact suspect regions.
• Level 2 - Redacted images are presented to a first reviewer to accept or decline to redact selected data on the image.
Redaction software may not work in some circumstances, such as with handwritten text or poor quality images. There must be a process to review records that cannot be redacted by software. It is recommended that these records be made available upon request, so proper review and redaction can be completed before they are provided on-line for viewing. The default view for judges is the non-redacted version of the record.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
Clerks must employ redaction processes through human review, the use of redaction software, or a combination of both. Clerks must audit the process adopted at least annually for quality assurance and must incorporate into their processes new legislation or court rules relating to protection of confidential information. It is recommended that clerks advise commercial purchasers that court records are regularly updated, and encourage use of updated records.
PERFORMANCE
Search parameters for internet access to electronic records will be limited to the following:
A. Public User
1. case type;
2. case number;
3. party name;
4. citation number;
5. date range.
B. Authenticated Users may have more robust search features.
Non-confidential data or data accessed by an authenticated user may be viewed immediately. Some images may be "viewable on request" to allow time for the redaction process.
Images are view only, and therefore cannot be modified. No search of images is allowed for internet public access. This type of search would invite bots, overburden the system, and weaken the security systems in place to protect confidential information. Internal users may search images if legally authorized to do so.
Only authorized automated search programs, to be used solely on the indices, shall be used with the court’s electronic public access system. Automated search programs may not be used on any other component of the court’s electronic public access system. The court and clerk will determine the criteria for authorization of any automated search programs. Such authorization may be revoked or modified at the discretion of the court and clerk.
ARCHIVAL REQUIREMENTS
Electronic records must be archived in a manner that protects the records from degradation, loss of content, or problems with software compatibility relative to the proper rendering of electronic records.
AUTHENTICATION REQUIREMENTS
Members of the general public do not require a username or password to access information that is generally available to the public. For information that is accessible to individuals or entities beyond general public access, users must be authenticated to verify their role and associated access levels. Users must subscribe to the access system, and provide information to verify their identity. Users are then assigned a login account. At a minimum, users accessing records and information beyond general public access must have a user name and password, and have the ability to change their password using self-service within the access portal.
USER MAINTENANCE
Each state or local government agency or law office with personnel who access electronic records in a role that must be authenticated must assign a gatekeeper to notify clerk’s office staff of employee or contractor changes. Each agency and law office must remove terminated employees or contractors and must accept responsibility for unauthorized access. The clerks must develop and maintain agreements clearly defining responsibilities for user maintenance.
ACCESS SECURITY MATRIX
AOSC 14-32
AOSC 14-32 | IN RE: APPOINTMENTS TO STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE UNLICENSED PRACTICE OF LAW
Miami, Florida 33133
Gregory Ryan Cohen
North Palm Beach, Florida 33408
Jason Hunter Korn
Naples, Florida 34108
Daytona Beach, Florida 32114
Ellen Wile
Bradenton, Florida 34205
Maitland, Florida 32794
Jeffrey Michael Kolokoff
Miami, Florida 33130
Lake Worth, Florida 33467
Stanley M. Giannet
Wesley Chapel, Florida 33543
Monte Gordon
Coral Gables, Florida 33134
David Lanaux
Fort Myers, Florida 33904
Gino Martone
Lauderdale Lakes, Florida 33311
Nancy A. Murphy
Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Miami, Florida 33233
| |
| Chief Justice Ricky Polston | |
| ATTEST: | |
| |
| John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court |
John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court
AOSC 15-26
AOSC 15-26 | IN RE: DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL BUDGET COMMISSION
Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.235(e) provides that the voting membership of the commission shall include the chief judge of each district court of appeal, who shall serve for his or her term as chief judge, and one additional judge from each district, who shall serve for a four-year term. The terms of a number of members of the commission have expired, and a number of members who were serving as the second judge from the respective district have transitioned into the chief judge position.
Accordingly, the following chief judges shall serve on the commission until their respective terms as chief judge are completed:
Chief Judge, First District Court of Appeal
The Honorable Craig C. Villantil
Chief Judge, Second District Court of Appeal
The Honorable Richard J. Suarez
Chief Judge, Third District Court of Appeal
The Honorable Cory J. Ciklin
Chief Judge, Fourth District Court of Appeal
The Honorable C. Alan Lawson
Chief Judge, Fifth District Court of Appeal
First District Court of Appeal
The Honorable Leslie B. Rothenberg
Third District Court of Appeal
The Honorable Wendy W. Berger
Fifth District Court of Appeal
Second District Court of Appeal
The Honorable Jonathan D. Gerber
Fourth District Court of Appeal
DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on August 28, 2015.
|  |
| Chief Justice Jorge Labarga | |
| ATTEST: | |
| |
| John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court |
John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court
Footnotes
AOSC 16-28
AOSC 16-28 | IN RE: FLORIDA COURTS TECHNOLOGY COMMISSION
One of the primary responsibilities of the Commission is to promote public trust and confidence in the judicial branch by delivering timely, consistent, and useful information through traditional and innovative communication methods, as well as utilizing compatible technology infrastructures to improve case management to meet the needs of the judicial branch and court users.
When the Commission was re-established in 2010, a system of staggered terms was instituted to avoid majority turnover in any year. Some members’ terms will expire on June 30, 2016. To accomplish the continuing tasks of modernizing court processes through automation and expanding self-service options for court users, as well as safeguarding the security, integrity, and confidentiality of court data and technology systems, the following individuals are hereby reappointed to serve as members of the Commission for a term that begins on July 1, 2016, and expires on June 30, 2019:
County Court Judge, Santa Rosa County
The Honorable Ronald Ficarrotta
Chief Judge, Thirteen Judicial Circuit
The Honorable Stevan T. Northcutt
Appellate Court Judge, Second District Court of Appeal
Mr. Thomas Genung
Trial Court Administrator, Nineteenth Judicial Circuit
Ms. Jannet Lewis
Court Technology Officer, Tenth Judicial Circuit
The Honorable Karen Rushing
Clerk of Court, Sarasota County
The Honorable Mary Cay Blanks
Clerk of Court, Third District Court of Appeal
Mr. Laird Lile
Attorney at Law, Naples
DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on June 20, 2016.
| |
| Chief Justice Jorge Labarga | |
| ATTEST: | |
| |
| John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court |
John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court
AOSC 17-33
AOSC 17-33 | IN RE: COURT INTERPRETER CERTIFICATION BOARD
The following members’ terms will expire on June 30, 2017:
County Court Judge
Levy County
The Honorable Lisa D. Campbell
Circuit Court Judge
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit
Ms. Barbara Dawicke
Trial Court Administrator
Fifteenth Judicial Circuit
County Court Judge
Taylor County
The Honorable Lisa D. Campbell
Circuit Court Judge
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit
Ms. Barbara Dawicke
Trial Court Administrator
Fifteenth Judicial Circuit
| |
| Chief Justice Jorge Labarga | |
| ATTEST: | |
| |
| John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court |
John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court
AOSC 17-34
AOSC 17-34 | IN RE: TRIAL COURT BUDGET COMMISSION
When the commission was originally appointed, a system of staggered terms was instituted to avoid majority turnover in any year. Additionally, pursuant to rule 2.230, Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, the membership must include 14 trial court judges and 7 trial court administrators.
A vacancy will exist on the commission due to the retirement of The Honorable Robert E. Roundtree, Jr., Circuit Court Judge in the Eighth Judicial Circuit. The Court acknowledges and appreciates Judge Roundtree’s service and leadership on the commission. The following person is appointed effective July 1, 2017, to fill the remainder of Judge Roundtree’s term, which will expire on November 30, 2018:
Circuit Court Judge, Eighth Judicial Circuit
DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on June 27, 2017.
| |
| Chief Justice Jorge Labarga | |
| ATTEST: | |
| |
| John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court |
John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court
AOSC 17-35
AOSC 17-35 | IN RE: DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL BUDGET COMMISSION
Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.235(e) provides that the voting membership of the commission shall include the chief judge of each district court of appeal, who shall serve for his or her term as chief judge, and one additional judge from each district court, who shall serve for a four-year term. The terms of a number of members of the commission expire on June 30, 2017. Some members who currently serve as the second judge from the respective district court will become chief judge on July 1, 2017.
Accordingly, the following judges shall serve on the commission commencing on July 1, 2017, and continuing until their respective terms as chief judge are completed:1
First District Court of Appeal
The Honorable Edward C. LaRose
Second District Court of Appeal
The Honorable Leslie B. Rothenberg
Third District Court of Appeal
The Honorable Jonathan D. Gerber
Fourth District Court of Appeal
First District Court of Appeal
The Honorable Barbara Lagoa
Third District Court of Appeal
The Honorable Wendy W. Berger
Fifth District Court of Appeal
DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on June 27, 2017.
| |
| Chief Justice Jorge Labarga | |
| ATTEST: | |
| |
| John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court |
John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court
Footnotes
2/ The Honorable Stevan T. Northcutt was appointed to serve as the second judge member from the Second District Court of Appeal, for a term that expires June 30, 2019, by In re: District Court of Appeal Budget Commission, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC15-26 (Aug. 28, 2015).
AOSC 18-16
AOSC 18-16 | ACCESS TO ELECTRONIC COURT RECORDS
In re: Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC14-19 (amended May 23, 2014), governs appropriate, differentiated levels of access to electronic court records and prescribes a process by which a clerk of court who wishes to provide court records online must develop and test in a pilot program its online electronic records access system and, when it demonstrates through such pilot program compliance with the Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records and the Access Security Matrix adopted by the Supreme Court, seek Supreme Court approval to provide online access to electronic court records. The clerks of court for three counties have completed the pilot program and are seeking approval to provide online access to electronic court records.
Through AOSC14-19, the Supreme Court adopted the standards and the security matrix and subsequently amended the standards and security matrix in succeeding administrative orders. The Florida Courts Technology Commission (Commission) has recommended additional amendments to the standards and the security matrix.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Supreme Court takes the following actions.
Approval of Clerk of Court Requests
The clerks of court for Brevard, Monroe, and Wakulla counties have engaged in a pilot program for at least 90 days to test its online electronic records access system; submitted at least three monthly status reports to the Office of the State Courts Administrator; reported all incidents of inadvertent release and unauthorized access to confidential information, if any occurred; took the appropriate corrective actions necessary to address all reported incidents related to confidential information; and ensured compliance with the current version of the standards and security matrix.In addition, each clerk of court submitted a certification request, consistent with AOSC14-19, and a written description of the steps, processes, or tools used to validate compliance with the standards and the security matrix. The Access Governance Board (Board) of the Commission reviewed each request and recommended approval, and the Commission concurred with the recommendation of the Board.
Accordingly, the requests to provide online access to electronic court records submitted by Brevard, Monroe, and Wakulla clerks of court are hereby approved, subject to the following terms and conditions:
2. Each clerk shall incorporate any future amendments or updates to the standards and security matrix into the clerk’s existing online electronic records access system.
3. To ensure compliance with the standards or security matrix, each clerk of court shall provide the Supreme Court or its designee access accounts for all roles in the security matrix, if so requested.
Amendments to the Access Security Matrix and the Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records
The Board received a request from the Florida Court Clerks & Comptrollers Technology Group to update the security matrix relating to mental health cases. Several mental health cases were excluded from the security matrix; thus, no security roles were attached. Based on statute, the Board modified the security matrix by adding Professional Guardian; Mental Health Miscellaneous; Substance Abuse Assessment/Treatment; and Tuberculosis/STD Treatment/Other Confidential case types. These updates also incorporate the changes made by Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(d)(1)(B), which includes new exemptions to public records law for non-court records that the clerks of court are required to protect.A Realigning of the Standards and Matrix Workgroup was created to revise and edit the standards and security matrix to ensure the documents complement one another. Previously in the standards, several user roles were lumped into similar categories by statutory citations for access to specific types of records; a few user roles denoted rules and statutes that did not grant access to that specific role; and the default view for judges was the non-redacted version of the record. In the new version of the standards, the user roles are separated and renamed to be synonymous to those in the security matrix; relevant rules and statutes have been added to indicate access and certain rules and statutes are more specific as they relate to the user role, rules and statutes that did not grant access to specific user roles have been removed; the Administrative user role has been deleted to eliminate ambiguity between an administrator and a gatekeeper; a gatekeeper is defined; the User Maintenance section is updated to allow clerks who currently use an online process to register users to use their online electronic records access system as opposed to registered user agreements; and the requirement for the default view for judges to see the non-redacted version of the record has been removed.
In accordance with its authority under Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.236 to “establish, periodically review, and update technical standards for technology used and to be used in the judicial branch to receive, manage, maintain, use, secure, and distribute court records by electronic means, consistent with the technology policies established by the supreme court,” the Commission concurred with the Board’s recommendations and submitted amended standards and an amended matrix for the Court’s consideration.
As a means for the judicial branch to continue to ensure responsible access to electronic court records, the Court hereby adopts the amended Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records and the amended Access Security Matrix to supersede those previously adopted. The amended standards and matrix are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.1
DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on June 21, 2018.
| |
| Chief Justice Jorge Labarga | |
| ATTEST: | |
| |
| John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court |
Footnotes
Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records
April 2018
ACCESS METHODS
2. Web-based application for replicated or live data with security; and
3. Web-based portal for public viewing of replicated data and variable levels of security based on user role.
ACCESS SECURITY MATRIX
2. Establishes access levels; and
3. Assigns access level for each user group based on case type.
USER AGREEMENTS
Clerks may use an online agreement, instead of a paper agreement, that requires users to agree to terms using an online click-through (for example, clicking on the “I AGREE” button, as with other online term agreements) as long as the agreement terms are versioned so that updates can be tracked. When agreement terms change, users are required to accept the new terms, either electronically or in paper. A sworn agreement is required or each user role, except for the Registered User role as defined by the Matrix. User agreements submitted in paper shall be retained by the clerk.
GATEKEEPER
USER ROLES
| MATRIX USER ROLES | ACCESS PERMITTED | USER SECURITY REQUIREMENTS |
|---|---|---|
| User Role 1 Judges and authorized court and clerk’s office personnel |
All court records, except those expunged pursuant to s. 943.0585, F.S., with discretionary limits based on local security policy. Each court and clerk must establish policies to ensure that access to confidential records and information is limited to those individuals who require access in performance of their official duties. Access to records sealed pursuant to s. 943.059(4), F.S., is permitted for judges to assist in performance of case-related adjudicatory responsibilities. |
In-house secure network and secure web access. |
| User Role 2 Florida State Attorneys’ Offices |
All records except those that are expunged or sealed, automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), or made confidential by court order. Access to Social Security numbers by ss. 119.071(5)(a)6.b. and 119.0714(1)(i), F.S. Access to HIV test results as permitted by s. 381.004(5)(c), F.S. Access to sexually transmitted disease results as permitted by s. 384.29(1), F.S. Access to birth certificates as permitted by ss. 382.013(5) and 382.025(1)(a)5, F.S. Access to mental health records as permitted by ss. 394.4615(3)(b), 394.4655(3)4)(c), and F.S. Access to identities of victims of sexual and child abuse when originating from law enforcement as permitted by s. 119.0714(1)(h), F.S. Access to children and families in need of services records as permitted by s. 984.06(3), F.S. Access to juvenile records as permitted by ss. 39.0132(4)(a)(1) and 985.04(1)(b), F.S. |
Secure access through user name and password by written notarized agreement. Agency gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining authorized user list. Each state attorney must establish policies to ensure that access to confidential records and information is limited to those individuals who require access in performance of their official duties. |
| User Role 3 Attorneys of record |
All records except those that are expunged or sealed; access may be denied to records or information automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), or made confidential by court order, depending upon the type of case and the language of the court order. | Secure access through user name and password by written notarized agreement. The gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining authorized user list. |
| User Role 4 Parties | All records in the party’s case except those that are expunged or sealed; access may be denied to information automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), or made confidential by court order, depending upon case type and the language of the order. | Secure access on case-by-case basis. Access by notarized request to insure identity of party. |
| User Role 5 Public in Clerks’ offices and registered users |
All records except those that are expunged or sealed, automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), or made confidential by court order. Viewable on request remote access to images of records in cases governed by the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure, Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure, or Florida Probate Rules, pursuant to s. 28.2221(5)(a), F.S. |
Secure access through user name and password by written notarized agreement or in person at Clerks’ offices. |
| User Role 6 General government and constitutional officers |
All records except those that are expunged or sealed, automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), Fla. R. Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order. Access to social security numbers as permitted by ss. 119.071(5)(a)6.b. and 119.0714(1)(i), F.S. |
Secure access through user name and password by written notarized agreement. Agency gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining authorized user list. Each agency must establish policies to ensure that access to confidential records and information is limited to those individuals who require access in performance of their official duties. |
| User Role 7 General public (without registration agreement) |
All records except those that are expunged or sealed, automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), or made confidential by court order. No remote access to images of records in cases governed by the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure, Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure, or Florida Probate Rules, pursuant to s. 28.2221(5)(a), F.S. |
None. Anonymous web-based access permitted. |
| User Role 8 Certified law enforcement officers of federal and Florida state and local law enforcement agencies, Florida Department of Corrections, and their authorized users |
All records except those that are expunged or sealed, automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), Fla. R. Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order. Access to social security numbers as permitted by ss. 119.071(5)(a)6.b. and 119.0714(1)(i), F.S. Access to HIV test results as permitted by ss. 381.004(2)(e), and 951.27 F.S. Access to sexually transmitted disease results as permitted by s. 384.29(1), F.S. Access to birth certificates as permitted by ss. 382.013(5) and 382.025(1)(a)5., F.S. Access to identities of victims of sexual and child abuse when originating from law enforcement as permitted by s. 119.0714(1)(h), F.S. Access to children and families in need of services records as permitted by s. 984.06(3), F.S. Access to juvenile records as permitted by ss. 39.0132(4)(a)(1) and 985.04(1)(b), F.S. |
Secure access through user name and password by written notarized agreement. Agency gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining an authorized user list. Each agency must establish policies to ensure that access to confidential records and information is limited to those individuals who require access in performance of their official duties. |
| User Role 9 Florida Attorney General’s Office and the Florida Department of Children and Families |
All records except those that are expunged or sealed, automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), Fla. R. Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order. Access to social security numbers as permitted by ss. 119.071(5)(a)6.b. and 119.0714(1)(i), F.S. Access to birth certificates as permitted by ss. 382.013(5) and 382.025(1)(a)5., F.S. Access to children and families in need of services records as permitted by s. 984.06(3), F.S. Access to juvenile records as permitted by ss. 39.0132(4)(a)(1) and 985.04(1)(b), F.S. |
Secure access through user name and password by written notarized agreement. Agency gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining authorized user list. Each agency must establish policies to ensure that access to confidential records and information is limited to those individuals who require access in performance of their official duties. |
| User Role 9 Florida School Districts (Truancy) |
All records except those that are expunged or sealed, automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), Fla. R. Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order. Access to social security numbers as permitted by ss. 119.071(5)(a)6.b. and 119.0714(1)(i), F.S. Access to juvenile delinquency records as permitted by s. 985.04(1)(b), F.S. |
Secure access through user name and password by written notarized agreement. Agency gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining authorized user list. Each school district must establish policies to ensure that access to confidential records and information is limited to those individuals who require access in performance of their official duties. |
| User Role 11 Commercial purchasers of bulk records |
All records except those that are expunged or sealed, automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), Fla. R. Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order. No remote access to images of records in cases governed by the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure, Florida Rules of Juvenile procedure, or Florida Probate Rules, pursuant to s. 28.2221(5)(a), F.S. |
Secure access through user name and password by written notarized agreement. Commercial purchaser gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining an authorized user list. |
| User Role 12 Florida Public Defenders’ Offices (Institutional Access only) |
All records except those that are expunged or sealed; access may be denied to records or information automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), Fla. R. Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order, depending upon the type of case and the language of the court order. The Office of the Public Defender is considered the attorney of record at a defendant’s first appearance as permitted by s. 985.045(2) and rules 8.010 and 8.165, Fla. R. Juv. P. for juvenile defendants and s. 27.51 and rule 3.130, Fla. R. Crim. P. for adult defendants. Access will be changed to User Role 6 when the public defender is no longer the attorney of record or another attorney is assigned. |
Secure access through user name and password by written notarized agreement. The gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining authorized user list. Each public defender must establish policies to ensure that access to confidential records and information is limited to those individuals who require access in performance of their official duties. |
ACCESS LEVELS
B. All but expunged, or sealed under Ch. 943, or sealed under rule 2.420;
C. All but expunged, or sealed under Ch. 943 and sealed under rule 2.420, or confidential;
D. All but expunged, sealed, or confidential; record images viewable upon request;
E. Case number, party names, dockets only;
F. Case number and party names only;
G. Case number only; and
H. No access.
REDACTION
There are generally two levels of redaction:
• Level 2 - Redacted images are presented to a first reviewer to accept or decline to redact selected data on the image.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
CLERK SECURITY
Minimum Technical Requirements:
2. No “cutting and pasting” of workable links;
3. Hyperlinks must not include authentication credentials;
4. No access to live data; replicated records will be used for public access;
5. Authenticated access for access beyond general public access; and
6. Monitor bulk data transfers to identify and mitigate abuses of the system by utilizing access programs using automated methods.
INTEGRITY OF THE COURT RECORD
Online links shall be encrypted to prevent return access to a URL via “cutting and pasting.” Link refresh times shall appropriately time out as determined by each individual clerk, but links shall refresh no less than once every 30 minutes.
PERFORMANCE
2. Case number;
3. Party name;
4. Citation number; and
5. Date range.
Online access to documents stored as images may be provided. Documents stored as images are “view only.” If a requested document is maintained by the clerk in a searchable format, the document may be provided to the public in that format, but only in response to a specific request. Search capability, if available, will be limited to such requested document and must not support automated bulk searches.
Only authorized automated search programs, to be used solely on the indices, shall be used with the court’s electronic public access system. Automated search programs may not be used on any other component of the court’s electronic public access system. The court and clerk will determine the criteria for authorization of any automated search programs. Such authorization may be revoked or modified at the discretion of the court and clerk.
ARCHIVAL REQUIREMENTS
AUTHENTICATION REQUIREMENTS
SECURITY MATRIX
AOSC 18-74
AOSC 18-74 | ELECTRONIC FILING AND ELECTRONIC SERVICE IN THE DISTRICT COURTS OF APPEAL ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER
This administrative order does not affect the service of documents originating from the five District Courts of Appeal, which will continue to use eDCA to serve all acknowledgment letters, orders, opinions, mandates, and other outgoing filings on electronic filers through a link provided by eDCA Casemail. As a result, all electronic filers remain obligated to register as eDCA users and remain responsible for ensuring their email addresses are current in their eDCA accounts.
DONE AND ORDERED, at Tallahassee, Florida, on December 10, 2018.
Chief Justice Charles T. Canady
John Tomasino, Clerk of Court
AOSC 19-5
AOSC 19-5 | IN RE: TRIAL COURT BUDGET COMMISSION
When the Commission was originally appointed, a system of staggered terms was instituted to avoid majority turnover in any year. Additionally, pursuant to rule 2.230, Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, the membership must include 14 trial court judges and seven trial court administrators.
Six of the 21 members’ terms expired on November 30, 2018. The following individuals are reappointed to serve as members of the Commission for a term that expires on November 30, 2024:
Circuit Court Judge, Eighth Judicial Circuit
The Honorable Ronald Ficarrotta
Circuit Court Chief Judge, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit
The Honorable Frederick J. Lauten
Circuit Court Chief Judge, Ninth Judicial Circuit
The Honorable Anthony Rondolino
Circuit Court Chief Judge, Sixth Judicial Circuit
Mr. Grant Slayden
Trial Court Administrator, Second Judicial Circuit
The Honorable Bertila Soto
Circuit Court Chief Judge, Eleventh Judicial Circuit
County Court Judge, Martin County, Nineteenth Judicial Circuit
Circuit Court Judge, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit
Trial Court Administrator, Fifth Judicial Circuit
| |
| Chief Justice Jorge Labarga | |
| ATTEST: | |
| |
| John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court |
John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court
AOSC 19-6
AOSC 19-6 | IN RE: DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL BUDGET COMMISSION
Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.235(e) provides that the voting membership of the commission shall include the chief judge of each district court of appeal, who shall serve for his or her term as chief judge, and one additional judge from each district court, who shall be appointed by the chief justice with advice from the chief judge.
The Honorable Barbara Lagoa was appointed to the Supreme Court of Florida, and The Honorable Jay P. Cohen completed his term as chief judge, thereby completing their service on the commission. Accordingly, the following individuals are appointed to the commission for terms that extend through their service as chief judge of the respective district court of appeal:
Third District Court of Appeal
The Honorable Kerry I. Evander
Fifth District Court of Appeal
DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on February 4, 2019.
| |
| Chief Justice Jorge Labarga | |
| ATTEST: | |
| |
| John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court |
John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court
AOSC 19-20
AOSC 19-20 | ACCESS TO ELECTRONIC COURT RECORDS
In re: Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC14-19 (amended May 23, 2014), governs appropriate, differentiated levels of access to electronic court records. Through AOSC14-19, the Supreme Court adopted the Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records and the Access Security Matrix. The standards and matrix provide a carefully structured mechanism to facilitate appropriate, differentiated levels of access to court records to members of the general public, user groups with specialized credentials, judges, and court and clerks’ office staff, based upon governing statutes and court rules. Through subsequent administrative orders the standards and security matrix have been amended, as necessary and appropriate.
The Access Governance Board (Board) of the Florida Courts Technology Commission (Commission) has recommended additional amendments to the standards. In some online electronic records access systems, attorneys have indefinite access even after they are no longer the attorney of record. Therefore, the Board recommended updating the Attorney of Record user role in the standards to denote an attorney’s access will be changed to registered user when the attorney’s appearance is terminated in accordance with Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.505(f). The Board also recommended removing the requirement of a written notarized agreement to access electronic records for users who are Public in Clerks’ offices and Registered Users. Lastly, the Board recommended updating the gatekeeper language in the standards to allow one or more gatekeepers, or a designee authorized by an agency head or an authorized gatekeeper, to add, update, and delete user or agency information to manage access and ensure security. The Commission concurred with the Board’s recommendations and submitted amended standards for the Court’s consideration.
As a means for the judicial branch to continue to ensure responsible access to electronic court records, the Court hereby adopts the amended Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records to supersede those adopted in In re: Access to Electronic Court Records, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC18-16 (June 21, 2018). The amended standards are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.1/
DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on April 16, 2019.
Chief Justice Charles T. Canady
John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court
Footnotes
Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records
April 2019
These standards establish statewide technical and operational requirements for access to electronic court records by the public, special user groups, judges, and court and clerk’s office personnel. These standards also implement the Access Security Matrix, which governs remote web-based and clerks’ office access to electronic court records.ACCESS METHODS
There are three different methods for accessing electronic court records:
1. Direct access via application to internal live data;
2. Web-based application for replicated or live data with security; and
3. Web-based portal for public viewing of replicated data and variable levels of security based on user role.
Direct or web-based access to live production data is generally limited to authorized court and clerk’s office personnel. Most users will access replicated data to protect the integrity and availability of the official court record maintained by the clerk.
ACCESS SECURITY MATRIX
The Access Security Matrix (the “Matrix”) appended to these standards governs access to electronic court records based upon user roles and applicable court rules, statutes, and administrative policies. The Matrix performs the following functions:
1. Establishes user groups;
2. Establishes access levels; and
3. Assigns access level for each user group based on case type.
The Access Governance Board (“the Board”), under the authority of the Florida Courts Technology Commission (the “FCTC”), is responsible for maintaining the Matrix by timely incorporating legislative and rule changes that impact access to electronic court records. Access permitted under the Matrix applies equally to electronic and paper court records.
USER AGREEMENTS
The FCTC, in conjunction with the clerks, must develop and maintain agreements clearly defining responsibilities for user access.
Clerks may use an online agreement, instead of a paper agreement, that requires users to agree to terms using an online click-through (for example, clicking on the “I AGREE” button, as with other online term agreements) as long as the agreement terms are versioned so that updates can be tracked. When agreement terms change, users are required to accept the new terms, either electronically or in paper. A notarized agreement is required for each user role, except for the Registered User role as defined by the Matrix. User agreements submitted in paper shall be retained by the clerk.
GATEKEEPER
In an effort to effectively manage access and ensure security, an agency may utilize one or more gatekeepers, or a designee authorized by an agency head or an authorized gatekeeper who shall be an employee of that agency, for the purpose of adding, updating, and deleting user or agency information. A gatekeeper shall only add users commensurate with an agency’s user role type and/or as registered users. Each agency shall be responsible for ensuring that each user added by the gatekeeper is only given access that is commensurate to their job duties. Nothing in this definition shall nullify any other duty imposed upon the gatekeeper by the Board.
USER ROLES
Access to electronic court records is determined by the user’s role and applicable statutes, court rules, and applicable administrative policy. Access may be restricted to certain user roles based on case type, document type, or information contained within court records. All individuals and entities authorized under these standards to have greater access than the general public must establish policies to protect confidential records and information in accordance with applicable court rule and statutory requirements. Remote electronic access may be more restrictive than inperson in-house electronic access at clerks’ offices.
| MATRIX USER ROLES | ACCESS PERMITTED | USER SECURITY REQUIREMENTS |
|---|---|---|
| User Role 1 Judges and authorized court and clerk’s office personnel | All court records, except those expunged pursuant to s. 943.0585, F.S., with discretionary limits based on local security policy. Each court and clerk must establish policies to ensure that access to confidential records and information is limited to those individuals who require access in performance of their official duties. Access to records sealed pursuant to s. 943.059(4), F.S., is permitted for judges to assist in performance of case-related adjudicatory responsibilities. | In-house secure network and secure web access. |
| User Role 2 Florida State Attorneys Offices | All records except those that are expunged or sealed, automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), or made confidential by court order. Access to Social Security numbers by ss. 119.071(5)(a)6.b. and 119.0714(1)(i), F.S. Access to HIV test results as permitted by s. 381.004(5)(c), F.S. Access to sexually transmitted disease results as permitted by s. 384.29(1), F.S. Access to birth certificates as permitted by ss. 382.013(5) and 382.025(1)(a)5, F.S. Access to mental health records as permitted by ss. 394.4615(3)(b), 394.4655(3)4)(c), and F.S. Access to identities of victims of sexual and child abuse when originating from law enforcement as permitted by s. 119.0714(1)(h), F.S. Access to children and families in need of services records as permitted by s.984.06(3), F.S. Access to juvenile records as permitted by ss. 39.0132(4)(a)(1) and 985.04(1)(b), F.S. | Secure access through user name and password by written notarized agreement. Agency gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining authorized user list. Each state attorney must establish policies to ensure that access to confidential records and information is limited to those individuals who require access in performance of their official duties. |
| User Role 3 Attorneys of record | All records except those that are expunged or sealed; access may be denied to records or information automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), or made confidential by court order, depending upon the type of case and the language of the court order. Access will be changed to Registered User when the attorney’s appearance is terminated in accordance with rule 2.505. | Secure access through user name and password by written notarized agreement. The gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining authorized user list. |
| User Role 4 Parties | All records in the party’s case except those that are expunged or sealed; access may be denied to information automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), or made confidential by court order, depending upon case type and the language of the order. | Secure access on case-by-case basis. Access by notarized request to insure identity of party. |
| User Role 5 Public in Clerks’ offices and Registered Users | All records except those that are expunged or sealed, automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), or made confidential by court order. Viewable on request remote access to images of records in cases governed by the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure, Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure, or Florida Probate Rules, pursuant to s. 28.2221(5)(a), F.S. | Secure access through user name and password or in person at Clerks’ offices. |
| User Role 6 General government and constitutional officers | All records except those that are expunged or sealed, automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), Fla. R. Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order. Access to social security numbers as permitted by ss. 119.071(5)(a)6.b. and 119.0714(1)(i), F.S. | Secure access through user name and password by written notarized agreement. Agency gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining authorized user list. Each agency must establish policies to ensure that access to confidential records and information is limited to those individuals who require access in performance of their official duties. |
| User Role 7 General public (without registration agreement) | All records except those that are expunged or sealed, automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), or made confidential by court order. No remote access to images of records in cases governed by the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure, Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure, or Florida Probate Rules, pursuant to s. 28.2221(5)(a), F.S. | None. Anonymous web-based access permitted. |
| User Role 8 Certified law enforcement officers of federal and Florida state and local law enforcement agencies, Florida Department of Corrections, and their authorized users | All records except those that are expunged or sealed, automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), Fla. R. Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order. Access to social security numbers as permitted by ss. 119.071(5)(a)6.b. and 119.0714(1)(i), F.S. Access to HIV test results as permitted by ss. 381.004(2)(e), and 951.27 F.S. Access to sexually transmitted disease results as permitted by s. 384.29(1), F.S. Access to birth certificates as permitted by ss. 382.013(5) and 382.025(1)(a)5., F.S. Access to identities of victims of sexual and child abuse when originating from law enforcement as permitted by s. 119.0714(1)(h), F.S. Access to children and families in need of services records as permitted by s. 984.06(3), F.S. Access to juvenile records as permitted by ss. 39.0132(4)(a)(1) and 985.04(1)(b), F.S. | Secure access through user name and password by written notarized agreement. Agency gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining an authorized user list. Each agency must establish policies to ensure that access to confidential records and information is limited to those individuals who require access in performance of their official duties. |
| User Role 9 Florida Attorney General’s Office and the Florida Department of Children and Families | All records except those that are expunged or sealed, automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), Fla. R. Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order. Access to social security numbers as permitted by ss. 119.071(5)(a)6.b. and 119.0714(1)(i), F.S. Access to birth certificates as permitted by ss. 382.013(5) and 382.025(1)(a)5., F.S. Access to children and families in need of services records as permitted by s. 984.06(3), F.S. Access to juvenile records as permitted by ss. 39.0132(4)(a)(1) and 985.04(1)(b), F.S. | Secure access through user name and password by written notarized agreement. Agency gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining authorized user list. Each agency must establish policies to ensure that access to confidential records and information is limited to those individuals who require access in performance of their official duties. |
| User Role 10 Florida School Districts (Truancy) | All records except those that are expunged or sealed, automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), Fla. R. Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order. Access to social security numbers as permitted by ss. 119.071(5)(a)6.b. and 119.0714(1)(i), F.S. Access to juvenile delinquency records as permitted by s. 985.04(1)(b), F.S. | Secure access through user name and password by written notarized agreement. Agency gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining authorized user list. Each school district must establish policies to ensure that access to confidential records and information is limited to those individuals who require access in performance of their official duties. |
| User Role 11 Commercial purchasers of bulk records | All records except those that are expunged or sealed, automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), Fla. R. Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order. No remote access to images of records in cases governed by the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure, Florida Rules of Juvenile procedure, or Florida Probate Rules, pursuant to s. 28.2221(5)(a), F.S. | Secure access through user name and password by written notarized agreement. Commercial purchaser gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining an authorized user list. |
| User Role 12 Florida Public Defenders’ Offices (Institutional Access only) | All records except those that are expunged or sealed; access may be denied to records or information automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), Fla. R. Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order, depending upon the type of case and the language of the court order. The Office of the Public Defender is considered the attorney of record at a defendant’s first appearance as permitted by s. 985.045(2) and rules 8.010 and 8.165, Fla. R. Juv. P. for juvenile defendants and s. 27.51 and rule 3.130, Fla. R. Crim. P. for adult defendants. Access will be changed to User Role 6 when the public defender is no longer the attorney of record or another attorney is assigned. | Secure access through user name and password by written notarized agreement. The gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining authorized user list. Each public defender must establish policies to ensure that access to confidential records and information is limited to those individuals who require access in performance of their official duties. |
Access levels are defined as follows:
A. All but expunged, or sealed under Ch. 943;
B. All but expunged, or sealed under Ch. 943, or sealed under rule 2.420;
C. All but expunged, or sealed under Ch. 943 and sealed under rule 2.420, or confidential;
D. All but expunged, sealed, or confidential; record images viewable upon request;
E. Case number, party names, dockets only;
F. Case number and party names only;
G. Case number only; and
H. No access.
Viewable on request access level applies to documents containing confidential information that must be redacted; this access level requires examination of the case file by a clerk to identify and redact confidential information before the record can be viewed.
REDACTION
Redaction is the process of obscuring confidential information contained within a public record from view. Redacted portions of a record are blacked out. Redaction may be accomplished manually or through use of technology such as redaction software. Redaction software is used when information is in electronic form. If redaction software is used, it must identify and protect confidential information through redaction of confidential content. For efficiency, redaction software is preferred over manual processes when the files are in electronic form.
There are generally two levels of redaction:
• Level 1 - The system reads the images and uses the knowledge base to auto-redact suspect regions.
• Level 2 - Redacted images are presented to a first reviewer to accept or decline to redact selected data on the image.
Redaction software which identifies confidential information may be used; however, a manual process must also exist to identify confidential information which may not be readily identified by an auto redaction process or for case types/documents that are available upon request
QUALITY ASSURANCE
Clerks must employ redaction processes through human review, the use of redaction software, or a combination of both. Clerks must audit the process adopted at least annually for quality assurance and must incorporate into their processes new legislation or court rules relating to protection of confidential information. It is recommended that clerks advise commercial purchasers that court records are regularly updated, and encourage use of updated records.
CLERK SECURITY
No sensitive security information should be presented on the user interface. Sensitive data shall be exchanged over trusted paths or by using adequate encryption between users; between users and systems; and between systems. The system must employ appropriate security and encryption measures to prevent disclosure of confidential data to unauthorized persons.
Minimum Technical Requirements:
1. Encryption (general public and authenticated)**;
2. No “cutting and pasting” of workable links;
3. Hyperlinks must not include authentication credentials;
4. No access to live data; replicated records will be used for public access;
5. Authenticated access for access beyond general public access; and
6. Monitor bulk data transfers to identify and mitigate abuses of the system by utilizing access programs using automated methods.
**Encryption protects the integrity of the record and prevents exposure to potential security risks. It also prevents authenticated users with higher access from sending links to information to non-authorized users.
INTEGRITY OF THE COURT RECORD
To protect the integrity and availability of the court record, public access will not be to the original record, but to a replicated version that is redacted, if applicable.
Online links shall be encrypted to prevent return access to a URL via “cutting and pasting.” Link refresh times shall appropriately time out as determined by each individual clerk, but links shall refresh no less than once every 30 minutes.
PERFORMANCE
Search parameters for web-based access to electronic records will be limited to the following:
A. User Role 7 (General Public)
1. Case type;
2. Case number;
3. Party name;
4. Citation number; and
5. Date range.
B. Other user roles with authenticated users may have more robust search features than general public users.
Non-confidential data or data accessed by an authenticated user may be viewed immediately. Some images may be "viewable on request" to allow time for the redaction process.
Online access to documents stored as images may be provided. Documents stored as images are “view only.” If a requested document is maintained by the clerk in a searchable format, the document may be provided to the public in that format, but only in response to a specific request. Search capability, if available, will be limited to such requested document and must not support automated bulk searches.
Only authorized automated search programs, to be used solely on the indices, shall be used with the court’s electronic public access system. Automated search programs may not be used on any other component of the court’s electronic public access system. The court and clerk will determine the criteria for authorization of any automated search programs. Such authorization may be revoked or modified at the discretion of the court and clerk.
ARCHIVAL REQUIREMENTS
Electronic records must be archived in a manner that protects the records from degradation, loss of content, or problems with software compatibility relative to the proper rendering of electronic records and in compliance with applicable law or Supreme Court guidelines.
AUTHENTICATION REQUIREMENTS
Members of the general public do not require a username or password to access information that is generally available to the public. For information that is accessible to individuals or entities beyond general public access, users must be authenticated to verify their role and associated access levels. Users must subscribe to the access system, and provide information to verify their identity. Users are then assigned a login account. At a minimum, users accessing records and information beyond general public access must have a user name and password, and have the ability to change their password using self-service within the web-based application.
SECURITY MATRIX
AOSC 19-74
AOSC 19-74 | JUDICIAL ELECTRONIC FILING ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER
Through their implementation of electronic filing and reliance on an automated case management system, the Supreme Court and the district courts of appeal have been leaders as the Florida state courts transition to a fully electronic environment that is largely paperless. Additionally, considerable efforts have been directed toward developing the infrastructure and policies necessary for parties to electronically file documents through the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal (“Portal”), while simultaneously establishing mechanisms to accept and maintain documents electronically. In 2013, this Court further endorsed the comprehensive automated court environment concept by directing attorneys to electronically file documents in both the civil and criminal divisions. 1 Since then, electronic filing (“e-filing”) has been a successful endeavor that saves time and money. An electronic court file that is fully accessible by all judicial system participants provides significant opportunities for increased efficiencies and, ultimately, cost savings to the judiciary.
The trial courts are an integral component in the transition to a fully electronic court environment. As funding has become available, the trial courts have worked diligently to implement the Court Application Processing System (“CAPS”), which is a computer application designed for in-court and in-chambers use by trial court judges and court staff, enabling them to work electronically on cases from any location and across many devices and data sources. The purpose of CAPS is to provide judges with rapid and reliable access to case information; provide access to and use of case files and other data while managing cases, scheduling and conducting hearings, adjudicating disputes, and recording and reporting judicial activity; and allow judges to prepare or accept, review, modify, electronically sign, file, and serve orders. However, although significant progress has been made to implement these systems, not all circuits, counties, or divisions have a fully-operational CAPS at this time.
Successful implementation of judicial e-filing using CAPS in the trial courts, as recommended by the Florida Courts Technology Commission (“Commission”), is contingent upon CAPS being implemented in every trial court, the appropriate functionality being available in CAPS, and the system being integrated with the Portal to receive proposed orders and file electronically signed orders.
Therefore, mandatory judicial e-filing must be undertaken concomitantly with the broader issue of ensuring access to CAPS for all judges. In conjunction with the Judicial E-filing Workgroup, the Commission submitted the Judicial E-Filing Workgroup Report (August 23, 2018), which is a proposed plan to address workload and other considerations associated with judicial e-filing. That report recommends trial courts operate within CAPS to electronically sign orders, including those prepared in court, and file them through the Portal or directly to the clerk's case maintenance system, utilizing standardized self-populating templates. Additionally, the report supports the continued development and improvement of the Portal and recommends filers use the Portal to submit proposed orders to CAPS.
After considering the Judicial E-Filing Workgroup Report, and in order for the judicial branch to continue enhancing the utilization of technology in a uniform manner to increase the effectiveness, efficiency, and accessibility of the state courts, the Court hereby adopts as its policy that the Court Application Processing System (CAPS) be deployed in every circuit, county, and division of Florida’s trial courts and that CAPS be used by all judges, when available. Each circuit is directed to pursue, from their respective counties, the funding necessary to implement and maintain CAPS in all divisions.
Moreover, the Court hereby requires judges to electronically sign orders and file them through the Portal or directly to the clerk’s case maintenance system when CAPS is available, fully-operational, and integrated with the Portal to receive proposed orders and file electronically signed orders. The Court also encourages the utilization of standardized, self-populating templates to improve the consistency of orders from case to case and county to county. Finally, although several CAPS systems allow for the direct filing of proposed orders, the Court supports the continued development of the Portal and hereby encourages the submission of proposed orders through the Portal to CAPS.
Chief judges of the trial courts are responsible for overseeing implementation of judicial e-filing within their respective circuit, pursuant to the policies and guidance set forth in this administrative order. Chief judges shall notify the Florida Courts Technology Commission when each county within their respective circuit has fully implemented judicial e-filing in accordance with this administrative order. If a trial court is not able to fully implement judicial e-filing in every county in that circuit within six months of the date of this order, the chief judge shall report that information to the Florida Courts Technology Commission and continue to report on a biannual basis thereafter until every county within the circuit has fully implemented judicial e-filing. The report shall include a description of the trial court’s progress and indicate the reasons it has not implemented judicial electronic filing within that jurisdiction, including when it is not practical. In multi-county circuits, the report should provide this information on a county-by-county basis.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on November 1, 2019.
1. See In re: Electronic Filing in the Supreme Court of Florida Via the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC13-7, and In re: Electronic Filing of Criminal Cases in the Trial Courts of Florida Via the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC13-48.
Chief Justice Charles T. Canady
John Tomasino, Clerk of Court
AOSC 20-16
AOSC 20-16 | IN RE: COVID-19 EMERGENCY PROCEDURES FOR THE ADMINISTERING OF OATHS VIA REMOTE AUDIO-VIDEO COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER
WHEREAS mitigating the effects of COVID-19 is a high priority on the Florida State Courts System; and
WHEREAS it is the intent of this order to suspend any actual or implied requirement that notaries, and other persons qualified to administer an oath in the State of Florida, must be in the presence of witnesses for purposes of administering an oath for depositions and other legal testimony, so long as the notary or other qualified person can both see and hear the witness via audio-video communications equipment for purposes of readily identifying the witness; and
WHEREAS a public health emergency currently exists in Florida requiring mitigation including social distancing measures meant to reduce the increase in person-to-person transmission of the virus that causes COVID-19;
NOW THEREFORE, under the administrative authority conferred upon me by article V, section 2(b) of the Florida Constitution and Florida Rules of Judicial Administration 2.205(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 2.205(a)(2)(B)(v),
IT IS ORDERED that:
2. If a witness is not located within the State of Florida, a witness may consent to being put on oath via audio-video communication technology by a person qualified to administer an oath in the State of Florida; and
3. All rules of procedure, court orders, and opinions applicable to remote testimony, depositions, and other legal testimony, including the attestation of family law forms, that can be read to limit or prohibit the use of audio-video communications equipment to administer oaths remotely or to witness the attestation of family law forms, are hereby suspended, and will remain suspended until the expiration of the provisions of paragraph five in In Re: COVID-19 Emergency Procedures in the Florida State Courts, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-13 (March 13, 2020), and any orders extending AOSC20-13.
| |
| Chief Justice Jorge Labarga | |
| ATTEST: | |
| |
| John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court |
John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court
AOSC 20-23
AOSC 20-23 | IN RE: COMPREHENSIVE COVID-19 EMERGENCY MEASURES FOR THE FLORIDA STATE COURTS
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER
As a result of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the State Surgeon General and State Health Officer on March 1, 2020, declared that a public health emergency exists in Florida, and the Governor on March 9, 2020, declared a state of emergency for the entire state. The Florida state courts have taken measures to mitigate the effects of this public health emergency upon the judicial branch and its participants. To that end, I have issued several administrative orders implementing temporary measures essential to the administration of justice during the COVID-19 pandemic.1 The overarching intent of those orders has been to mitigate the impact of COVID-19, while keeping the courts operating to the fullest extent consistent with public safety.This order extends, refines, and strengthens previously enacted temporary remedial measures. The measures shall remain in effect until the close of business on May 29, 2020, unless a different end date is indicated herein or as provided by subsequent order.
Under the administrative authority conferred upon me by article V, section 2(b) of the Florida Constitution and by Florida Rules of Judicial Administration 2.205(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 2.205(a)(2)(B)(v),
IT IS ORDERED that:
I. GUIDING PRINCIPLES
B. To maintain judicial workflow to the maximum extent feasible, chief judges are directed to take all necessary steps to facilitate conducting proceedings with the use of technology.
C. Nothing in this order is intended to limit a chief judge’s authority to conduct court business or to approve additional court proceedings or events (except for grand jury proceedings, jury selection proceedings, and criminal and civil jury trials, all of which are suspended) that are required in the interest of justice, if doing so is consistent with protecting the health of the participants and the public health.
D. Judges and court personnel who can effectively conduct court and judicial branch business from a remote location shall do so.
II. USE OF TECHNOLOGY
B. The chief judge of each judicial circuit remains authorized to establish temporary procedures for the use, to the maximum extent feasible, of communication equipment for the conducting of proceedings by remote electronic means, as are necessary in their respective circuits due to the public health emergency.3
C. Administering of Oaths
(2) If a witness is not located within the State of Florida, a witness may consent to being put on oath via audio-video communication technology by a person qualified to administer an oath in the State of Florida.5
(3) All rules of procedure, court orders, and opinions applicable to remote testimony, depositions, and other legal testimony, including the attestation of family law forms, that can be read to limit or prohibit the use of audio-video communications equipment to administer oaths remotely or to witness the attestation of family law forms, shall remain suspended.6
(4) Notaries and other persons qualified to administer an oath in the State of Florida may swear in new attorneys to The Florida Bar remotely by audio-video communication technology from a location within the State of Florida, provided they can positively identify the new attorney.
(5) For purposes of the provisions regarding the administering of oaths, the term “positively identify” means that the notary or other qualified person can both see and hear the witness or new attorney via audio-video communications equipment for purposes of readily identifying the witness or new attorney.
III. COURT PROCEEDINGS
B. Essential and Critical Trial Court Proceedings.8
criminal arraignments as necessary;
hearings on motions to set or modify monetary bail for individuals who are in custody;
juvenile dependency shelter hearings;
juvenile delinquency detention hearings;
hearings on petitions for injunctions relating to safety of an individual;
hearings on petitions for risk protection orders;
hearings on petitions for the appointment of an emergency temporary guardian;
hearings to determine whether an individual should be involuntarily committed under the Baker Act or the Marchman Act; and
hearings on petitions for extraordinary writs as necessary to protect constitutional rights.
(3) It is recognized that certain essential or critical trial court proceedings in some jurisdictions may in extraordinary, limited circumstances be unavoidably delayed due to the exigencies of the ongoing emergency. When this occurs, chief judges are required to take all steps feasible to minimize the delay.
(4) In conducting essential proceedings and proceedings critical to the state of emergency or the public health emergency, circuit and county courts shall employ all methods feasible to minimize risk of COVID-19 exposure to individuals involved in the proceedings or the general public.
D. Limits on In-person Hearings.10 No proceedings or other court events other than essential proceedings and proceedings critical to the state of emergency or the public health emergency shall be conducted through in-person hearings.
IV. SUSPENSION OF TIME PERIODS IN CERTAIN RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
B. Persons Arrested for First Degree Murder.12 With regard to persons arrested for first degree murder, all time periods under Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.133(b) and 3.134 shall remain suspended. The suspension of the time limits of Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.133(b) and 3.134 restores additional days equal to the number stated in the previous order and this order.
C. Incompetence to Proceed.13 Where exigencies make it impossible to meet the 20-day time period in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.210(b), chief judges of the circuit courts remain authorized to direct judges to hold competency hearings as soon as feasible after the date of filing a motion to determine competency. Chief judges also remain authorized to allow experts and attorneys to conduct and attend competency evaluations by remote means, if feasible.
V. DEFENDANTS ARRESTED ON WARRANT OR CAPIAS FROM ANOTHER FLORIDA JURISDICTION14
To mitigate the health risks associated with the incarceration and transportation of defendants during the pandemic, when a defendant is arrested on a warrant or capias from another Florida jurisdiction, chief judges of the circuit courts remain encouraged to facilitate communication between the circuit or county where the case originated (“home court”) and the circuit or county where the defendant is incarcerated (“holding court”), for the handling of matters on a temporary basis, as follows:Action taken by the holding court at first appearance and any pretrial release hearing should be promptly reported to the home court and reflected in the record of the case.
Any provision of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.131 inconsistent with these measures remains suspended.
C. Rights of Parties. In cases that are not handled by a plea or pretrial release such that the defendant will continue to be detained in the jurisdiction of the holding court for an indefinite period of time, chief judges are directed to ensure that the due process rights of the defendant are protected by facilitating the temporary transfer of the case to the holding court, if necessary; by having a judge from the holding court designated by the Chief Justice, or designated by the chief judge if the home and holding court are within the same circuit, as a judge of the home court to handle emergency or other necessary matters in the case; or by other appropriate means.
D. Victims. The constitutional rights of crime victims must also be considered in all cases by the presiding judge.
VI. SPEEDY TRIAL PROCEDURE IN NONCRIMINAL TRAFFIC INFRACTION COURT PROCEEDINGS15
All time periods involving the speedy trial procedure in noncriminal traffic infraction court proceedings remain suspended through the close of business on Monday, June 1, 2020. The suspension of time limits under the speedy trial procedure restores additional days equal to the number stated in the previous order and this order. This order is not intended to preclude conducting noncriminal traffic infraction proceedings if the chief judge of the circuit has determined that it is feasible to conduct such proceedings remotely.VII. WRITS OF POSSESSION16
The requirement in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.580(a) for the clerk to issue a writ of possession “forthwith” remains suspended.VIII. FAMILY LAW FORMS17
Except as indicated below, the requirement that Florida Family Law Forms be notarized or signed in the presence of a deputy clerk remains suspended, if the filer includes the following statement before the filer’s signature:Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read this document and the facts stated in it are true.This exception does not apply to Florida Family Law Forms 12.902(f)(1), Marital Settlement Agreement for Dissolution of Marriage with Dependent or Minor Child(ren), 12.902(f)(2), Marital Settlement Agreement for Dissolution of Marriage with Property but No Dependent or Minor Child(ren), 12.902(f)(3), Marital Settlement Agreement for Simplified Dissolution of Marriage, and any other family law form that transfers the ownership of property, which must continue to be notarized or signed in the presence of a deputy clerk prior to filing.
IX. VISITATION FOR CHILDREN UNDER THE PROTECTIVE SUPERVISION OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (DCF)18
Requirements for in-person visitation pursuant to circuit court orders entered under chapter 39, Florida Statutes, remain suspended. This order does not affect in-person visitations when all parties and the caregiver agree that the visitation can take place in a manner that does not pose a health threat.In lieu of in-person visitation, visitation shall be conducted through electronic means with video communication as the preferred means, although telephonic contact is permitted if video communication is not feasible.
The suspension of in-person visitation applies to parent-child visitation, sibling visitation, and visitation between children and other family members and non-relatives.
If a party seeks to reinstate in-person visitation while the suspension of inperson visitation requirements remains in effect, such reinstatement shall be determined on a case-by-case basis by the circuit court with jurisdiction over that party’s case. Reinstatement of in-person visitation may be ordered if the court determines that it will not jeopardize the health, safety, and well-being of all children and adults (including caregivers) who will be affected by the in-person visitation.
Nothing in these provisions regarding visitation for children under the protective supervision of the DCF overrides existing circuit administrative orders to the extent that those orders are not in conflict with this order. Circuits may enter additional administrative orders addressing visitation and contact pursuant to chapter 39, Florida Statutes, to the extent that they are not in conflict with this order.
* * * * * * * * *
Additional orders extending or modifying these measures will be issued as warranted by changing circumstances during the public health emergency.DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on April 6, 2020.
| |
| Chief Justice Jorge Labarga | |
| ATTEST: | |
| |
| John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court |
John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court
Footnotes
2/ This measure initially went into effect at the close of business on March 13, 2020. (AOSC20-13).
3/ This measure initially went into effect on Friday, March 13, 2020. (AOSC20-13).
4/ This measure initially went into effect on March 18, 2020. (AOSC20-16).
5/ This measure initially went into effect on March 18, 2020. (AOSC20-16).
6/ This measure initially went into effect on March 18, 2020. (AOSC20-16).
7/ This measure initially went into effect on March 16, 2020. (AOSC20-13).
8/ These measures initially went into effect on March 17, 2020. (AOSC20-15).
9/ This measure initially went into effect on March 17, 2020. (AOSC20-15).
10/ This measure initially went into effect on March 17, 2020. (AOSC20-15).
11/ This measure initially went into effect at the close of business on March 13, 2020. (AOSC20-13 and AOSC20-17).
12/ This measure initially went into effect at the close of business on March 13, 2020. (AOSC20-17).
13/ This measure initially went into effect on March 24, 2020. (AOSC20-17).
14/ These measures initially took effect on March 24, 2020. (AOSC20-17).
15/ This measure initially took effect on March 13, 2020. (AOSC20-19).
16/ This measure initially took effect on March 24, 2020. (AOSC20-17).
17/ This measure initially took effect on March 24, 2020. (AOSC20-17).
18/ These measures initially took effect on March 27, 2020. (AOSC20-18).
AOSC 20-23 (1)
AOSC 20-23 (1) | IN RE: COMPREHENSIVE COVID-19 EMERGENCY MEASURES FOR THE FLORIDA STATE COURTS
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER1
As a result of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the State Surgeon General and State Health Officer on March 1, 2020, declared that a public health emergency exists in Florida, and the Governor on March 9, 2020, declared a state of emergency for the entire state. The Florida state courts have taken measures to mitigate the effects of this public health emergency upon the judicial branch and its participants. To that end, I have issued several administrative orders implementing temporary measures essential to the administration of justice during the COVID-19 pandemic.2 The overarching intent of those orders has been to mitigate the impact of COVID-19, while keeping the courts operating to the fullest extent consistent with public safety.This order extends, refines, and strengthens previously enacted temporary remedial measures. The measures shall remain in effect until the close of business on May 29, 2020, unless a different end date is indicated herein or as provided by subsequent order.
Under the administrative authority conferred upon me by article V, section 2(b) of the Florida Constitution and by Florida Rules of Judicial Administration 2.205(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 2.205(a)(2)(B)(v),
IT IS ORDERED that:
I. GUIDING PRINCIPLES
B. To maintain judicial workflow to the maximum extent feasible, chief judges are directed to take all necessary steps to facilitate conducting proceedings with the use of technology.
C. Nothing in this order is intended to limit a chief judge’s authority to conduct court business or to approve additional court proceedings or events (except for grand jury proceedings, jury selection proceedings, and criminal and civil jury trials, all of which are suspended) that are required in the interest of justice, if doing so is consistent with protecting the health of the participants and the public health.
D. Judges and court personnel who can effectively conduct court and judicial branch business from a remote location shall do so.
II. USE OF TECHNOLOGY
B. The chief judge of each judicial circuit remains authorized to establish temporary procedures for the use, to the maximum extent feasible, of communication equipment for the conducting of proceedings by remote electronic means, as are necessary in their respective circuits due to the public health emergency.4
C. Administering of Oaths
(2) If a witness is not located within the State of Florida, a witness may consent to being put on oath via audio-video communication technology by a person qualified to administer an oath in the State of Florida.6
(3) All rules of procedure, court orders, and opinions applicable to remote testimony, depositions, and other legal testimony, including the attestation of family law forms, that can be read to limit or prohibit the use of audio-video communications equipment to administer oaths remotely or to witness the attestation of family law forms, shall remain suspended.7
(4) Notaries and other persons qualified to administer an oath in the State of Florida may swear in new attorneys to The Florida Bar remotely by audio-video communication technology from a location within the State of Florida, provided they can positively identify the new attorney.
(5) For purposes of the provisions regarding the administering of oaths, the term “positively identify” means that the notary or other qualified person can both see and hear the witness or new attorney via audio-video communications equipment for purposes of readily identifying the witness or new attorney.
III. COURT PROCEEDINGS
B. Essential and Critical Trial Court Proceedings.9
criminal arraignments as necessary;
hearings on motions to set or modify monetary bail for individuals who are in custody;
juvenile dependency shelter hearings;
juvenile delinquency detention hearings;
hearings on petitions for injunctions relating to safety of an individual;
hearings on petitions for risk protection orders;
hearings on petitions for the appointment of an emergency temporary guardian;
hearings to determine whether an individual should be involuntarily committed under the Baker Act or the Marchman Act; and
hearings on petitions for extraordinary writs as necessary to protect constitutional rights.
(3) It is recognized that certain essential or critical trial court proceedings in some jurisdictions may in extraordinary, limited circumstances be unavoidably delayed due to the exigencies of the ongoing emergency. When this occurs, chief judges are required to take all steps feasible to minimize the delay.
(4) In conducting essential proceedings and proceedings critical to the state of emergency or the public health emergency, circuit and county courts shall employ all methods feasible to minimize risk of COVID-19 exposure to individuals involved in the proceedings or the general public.
(2) Status, case management, and pretrial conferences in all case types;
(3) Non-evidentiary and evidentiary motion hearings in all case types;
(4) Arraignments and pleas in absentia in county court misdemeanor cases;
(5) Hearings in juvenile delinquency cases;
(6) Hearings in noncriminal traffic infraction cases;
(7) Problem-solving court staffings, hearings, and wellness checks; and
(8) Non-jury trials in all case types, except for criminal, juvenile delinquency, and termination of parental rights petitions in dependency cases unless the parties in an excepted case agree to the remote conduct of a non-jury trial.
• Would be infeasible because the court, the clerk, or other participant in a proceeding lacks the technological resources necessary to conduct the proceeding or, for reasons directly related to the state of emergency or the public health emergency, lacks the staff resources necessary to conduct the proceeding.
D. Limits on In-person Hearings.11 No proceedings or other court events other than essential proceedings and proceedings critical to the state of emergency or the public health emergency shall be conducted through in-person hearings.
IV. SUSPENSION OF TIME PERIODS IN CERTAIN RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
B. Persons Arrested for First Degree Murder.13 With regard to persons arrested for first degree murder, all time periods under Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.133(b) and 3.134 shall remain suspended through July 2, 2020. The suspension of the time limits of Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.133(b) and 3.134 restores additional days equal to the number stated in the previous order and this order.
C. Incompetence to Proceed.14 Where exigencies make it impossible to meet the 20-day time period in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.210(b), chief judges of the circuit courts remain authorized to direct judges to hold competency hearings as soon as feasible after the date of filing a motion to determine competency. Chief judges also remain authorized to allow experts and attorneys to conduct and attend competency evaluations by remote means, if feasible.
V. DEFENDANTS ARRESTED ON WARRANT OR CAPIAS FROM ANOTHER FLORIDA JURISDICTION15
To mitigate the health risks associated with the incarceration and transportation of defendants during the pandemic, when a defendant is arrested on a warrant or capias from another Florida jurisdiction, chief judges of the circuit courts remain encouraged to facilitate communication between the circuit or county where the case originated (“home court”) and the circuit or county where the defendant is incarcerated (“holding court”), for the handling of matters on a temporary basis, as follows:Action taken by the holding court at first appearance and any pretrial release hearing should be promptly reported to the home court and reflected in the record of the case.
Any provision of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.131 inconsistent with these measures remains suspended.
C. Rights of Parties. In cases that are not handled by a plea or pretrial release such that the defendant will continue to be detained in the jurisdiction of the holding court for an indefinite period of time, chief judges are directed to ensure that the due process rights of the defendant are protected by facilitating the temporary transfer of the case to the holding court, if necessary; by having a judge from the holding court designated by the Chief Justice, or designated by the chief judge if the home and holding court are within the same circuit, as a judge of the home court to handle emergency or other necessary matters in the case; or by other appropriate means.
D. Victims. The constitutional rights of crime victims must also be considered in all cases by the presiding judge.
VI. SPEEDY TRIAL PROCEDURE IN NONCRIMINAL TRAFFIC INFRACTION COURT PROCEEDINGS16
All time periods involving the speedy trial procedure in noncriminal traffic infraction court proceedings remain suspended. The suspension of time limits under the speedy trial procedure restores additional days equal to the number stated in the previous order and this order.VII. WRITS OF POSSESSION17
The requirement in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.580(a) for the clerk to issue a writ of possession “forthwith” remains suspended.VIII. FAMILY LAW FORMS18
Except as indicated below, the requirement that Florida Family Law Forms be notarized or signed in the presence of a deputy clerk remains suspended, if the filer includes the following statement before the filer’s signature:Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read this document and the facts stated in it are true.This exception does not apply to Florida Family Law Forms 12.902(f)(1), Marital Settlement Agreement for Dissolution of Marriage with Dependent or Minor Child(ren), 12.902(f)(2), Marital Settlement Agreement for Dissolution of Marriage with Property but No Dependent or Minor Child(ren), 12.902(f)(3), Marital Settlement Agreement for Simplified Dissolution of Marriage, and any other family law form that transfers the ownership of property, which must continue to be notarized or signed in the presence of a deputy clerk prior to filing.
IX. VISITATION FOR CHILDREN UNDER THE PROTECTIVE SUPERVISION OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (DCF)19
Requirements for in-person visitation pursuant to circuit court orders entered under chapter 39, Florida Statutes, remain suspended. This order does not affect in-person visitations when all parties and the caregiver agree that the visitation can take place in a manner that does not pose a health threat.In lieu of in-person visitation, visitation shall be conducted through electronic means with video communication as the preferred means, although telephonic contact is permitted if video communication is not feasible.
The suspension of in-person visitation applies to parent-child visitation, sibling visitation, and visitation between children and other family members and non-relatives.
If a party seeks to reinstate in-person visitation while the suspension of inperson visitation requirements remains in effect, such reinstatement shall be determined on a case-by-case basis by the circuit court with jurisdiction over that party’s case. Reinstatement of in-person visitation may be ordered if the court determines that it will not jeopardize the health, safety, and well-being of all children and adults (including caregivers) who will be affected by the in-person visitation.
Nothing in these provisions regarding visitation for children under the protective supervision of the DCF overrides existing circuit administrative orders to the extent that those orders are not in conflict with this order. Circuits may enter additional administrative orders addressing visitation and contact pursuant to chapter 39, Florida Statutes, to the extent that they are not in conflict with this order.
* * * * * * * * *
Additional orders extending or modifying these measures will be issued as warranted by changing circumstances during the public health emergency.DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on May 4, 2020.
| |
| Chief Justice Jorge Labarga | |
| ATTEST: | |
| |
| John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court |
John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court
Footnotes
2/ In re: COVID-19 Emergency Procedures in the Florida State Courts, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-13 (March 13, 2020); In re: COVID-19 Essential and Critical Trial Court Proceedings, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-15 (March 17, 2020); In re: COVID-19 Emergency Procedures for the Administering of Oaths via Remote Audio-Video Communication Equipment, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-16 (March 18, 2020); In re: COVID-19 Emergency Measures in the Florida State Courts, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-17 (March 24, 2020);In re: COVID-19 Emergency Procedures in Relation to Visitation for Children Under the Protective Supervision of the Department of Children and Families, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-18 (March 27, 2020); and In re: COVID-19 Emergency Procedures for Speedy Trial in Noncriminal Traffic Infraction Court Proceedings, Fla. Admin Order No. AOSC20-19 (March 30, 2020).
3/ This measure initially went into effect at the close of business on March 13, 2020. (AOSC20-13).
4/ This measure initially went into effect on Friday, March 13, 2020. (AOSC20-13).
5/ This measure initially went into effect on March 18, 2020. (AOSC20-16).
6/ This measure initially went into effect on March 18, 2020. (AOSC20-16).
7/ This measure initially went into effect on March 18, 2020. (AOSC20-16).
8/ This measure initially went into effect on March 16, 2020. (AOSC20-13).
9/ These measures initially went into effect on March 17, 2020. (AOSC20-15).
10/ A measure related to these proceedings initially went into effect on March 17, 2020. (AOSC20-15). Substantial revisions are made by this amended order.
11/ This measure initially went into effect on March 17, 2020. (AOSC20-15).
12/ This measure initially went into effect at the close of business on March 13, 2020. (AOSC20-13 and AOSC20-17).
13/ This measure initially went into effect at the close of business on March 13, 2020. (AOSC20-17).
14/ This measure initially went into effect on March 24, 2020. (AOSC20-17).
15/ These measures initially took effect on March 24, 2020. (AOSC20-17).
16/ This measure initially took effect on March 13, 2020. (AOSC20-19).
17/ This measure initially took effect on March 24, 2020. (AOSC20-17).
18/ This measure initially took effect on March 24, 2020. (AOSC20-17).
19/ These measures initially took effect on March 27, 2020. (AOSC20-18).
AOSC 20-23 (2)
AOSC 20-23 (2) | IN RE: COMPREHENSIVE COVID-19 EMERGENCY MEASURES FOR THE FLORIDA STATE COURTS
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER1
As a result of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the State Surgeon General and State Health Officer on March 1, 2020, declared that a public health emergency exists in Florida, and the Governor on March 9, 2020, declared a state of emergency for the entire state. The Florida state courts have taken measures to mitigate the effects of this public health emergency upon the judicial branch and its participants. To that end, I have issued several administrative orders implementing temporary measures essential to the administration of justice during the COVID-19 pandemic.2 The overarching intent of those orders has been to mitigate the impact of COVID-19, while keeping the courts operating to the fullest extent consistent with public safety.It is the intent of the judicial branch to transition to optimal operations in a manner that protects the public’s health and safety during each of the following anticipated phases of the pandemic:
b) Phase 2 – limited in-person contact is authorized for certain purposes and/or requires use of protective measures;
c) Phase 3 – in-person contact is more broadly authorized and protective measures are relaxed; and
d) Phase 4 – COVID-19 no longer presents a significant risk to public health and safety.
Under the administrative authority conferred upon me by article V, section 2(b) of the Florida Constitution and by Florida Rules of Judicial Administration 2.205(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 2.205(a)(2)(B)(v),
IT IS ORDERED that:
I. GUIDING PRINCIPLES
B. To maintain judicial workflow to the maximum extent feasible, chief judges are directed to take all necessary steps to facilitate conducting proceedings with the use of technology.
C. Nothing in this order is intended to limit a chief judge’s authority to conduct court business or to approve additional court proceedings or events (except for grand jury proceedings, jury selection proceedings, and criminal and civil jury trials, all of which are suspended) that are required in the interest of justice, if doing so is consistent with protecting the health of the participants and the public health.
D. Judges and court personnel who can effectively conduct court and judicial branch business from a remote location shall do so. Participants who have the capability of participating by electronic means in remote court proceedings shall do so.
II. USE OF TECHNOLOGY
B. The chief judge of each district court of appeal and each judicial circuit remains authorized to establish procedures for the use, to the maximum extent feasible, of communication equipment for the conducting of proceedings by remote electronic means, as are necessary in their respective district or circuit due to the public health emergency.4
C. Administering of Oaths
(2) If a witness is not located within the State of Florida, a witness may consent to being put on oath via audio-video communication technology by a person qualified to administer an oath in the State of Florida.6
(3) All rules of procedure, court orders, and opinions applicable to remote testimony, depositions, and other legal testimony, including the attestation of family law forms, that can be read to limit or prohibit the use of audio-video communications equipment to administer oaths remotely or to witness the attestation of family law forms, shall remain suspended.7
(4) Notaries and other persons qualified to administer an oath in the State of Florida may swear in new attorneys to The Florida Bar remotely by audio-video communication technology from a location within the State of Florida, provided they can positively identify the new attorney.
(5) For purposes of the provisions regarding the administering of oaths, the term “positively identify” means that the notary or other qualified person can both see and hear the witness or new attorney via audio-video communications equipment for purposes of readily identifying the witness or new attorney.
III. COURT PROCEEDINGS8
B. Essential and Critical Trial Court Proceedings.10 Essential and critical trial court proceedings should continue to be conducted remotely or, if necessary, in person.
criminal arraignments;
hearings on motions to set or modify monetary bail for individuals who are in custody;
juvenile dependency shelter hearings;
juvenile delinquency detention hearings;
hearings on petitions for injunctions relating to safety of an individual;
hearings on petitions for risk protection orders;
hearings on petitions for the appointment of an emergency temporary guardian;
hearings to determine whether an individual should be involuntarily committed under the Baker Act or the Marchman Act; and
hearings on petitions for extraordinary writs as necessary to protect constitutional rights.
(3) It is recognized that certain essential or critical trial court proceedings in some jurisdictions may in extraordinary, limited circumstances be unavoidably delayed due to the exigencies of the ongoing emergency. When this occurs, chief judges are required to take all steps feasible to minimize the delay.
(4) In conducting essential proceedings and proceedings critical to the state of emergency or the public health emergency, circuit and county courts shall employ all methods feasible to minimize risk of COVID-19 exposure to individuals involved in the proceedings or the general public.
(2) Status, case management, and pretrial conferences in all case types;
(3) Non-evidentiary and evidentiary motion hearings in all case types;
(4) Pleas in absentia in county court misdemeanor cases;
(5) Hearings in juvenile delinquency cases;
(6) Hearings in noncriminal traffic infraction cases;
(7) Hearings in involuntary commitment of sexually violent predator cases;
(8) Problem-solving court staffings, hearings, and wellness checks; and
(9) Non-jury trials in all case types,12 except for:
• Termination of parental rights or juvenile delinquency cases, unless the chief judge or the presiding judge in the case determines that the non-jury trial should proceed remotely.
• Remote conduct of the proceeding would be infeasible because the court, the clerk, or other participant in a proceeding lacks the technological resources necessary to conduct the proceeding or, for reasons directly related to the state of emergency or the public health emergency, lacks the staff resources necessary to conduct the proceeding.
D. Limits on In-person Hearings.13 No proceedings or other court events other than essential proceedings and proceedings critical to the state of emergency or the public health emergency shall be conducted through in-person hearings. However, after the chief judge of a judicial circuit has determined that the circuit has transitioned to Phase 2 pursuant to Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-32, nonessential and non-critical court proceedings that cannot be conducted remotely, because one of the exceptions under III.C. applies, may be conducted in person in a manner consistent with the circuit’s operational plan.
IV. SUSPENSION OF TIME PERIODS IN CERTAIN RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
B. Persons Arrested for First Degree Murder.15 With regard to persons arrested for first degree murder, all time periods under Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.133(b) and 3.134 shall remain suspended through July 2, 2020. The suspension of the time limits of Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.133(b) and 3.134 restores additional days equal to the number stated in the previous order and this order.
C. Incompetence to Proceed.16 Where exigencies make it impossible to meet the 20-day time period in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.210(b), chief judges of the circuit courts remain authorized to direct judges to hold competency hearings as soon as feasible after the date of filing a motion to determine competency. Chief judges also remain authorized to allow experts and attorneys to conduct and attend competency evaluations by remote means, if feasible.
V. DEFENDANTS ARRESTED ON WARRANT OR CAPIAS FROM ANOTHER FLORIDA JURISDICTION17
To mitigate the health risks associated with the incarceration and transportation of defendants during the pandemic, when a defendant is arrested on a warrant or capias from another Florida jurisdiction, chief judges of the circuit courts remain encouraged to facilitate communication between the circuit or county where the case originated (“home court”) and the circuit or county where the defendant is incarcerated (“holding court”), for the handling of matters on a temporary basis, as follows:For capiases and violation of probation warrants, before setting monetary bond or other conditions of pretrial release, the first appearance judge, in order to make a proper decision regarding monetary bond or other conditions of pretrial release, must rely on relevant information from the following individuals in the county that issued the capias or warrant: the issuing judge, defense counsel if any, and the state attorney.
Action taken by the holding court at first appearance and any pretrial release hearing should be promptly reported to the home court and reflected in the record of the case.
Any provision of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.131 inconsistent with these measures remains suspended.
B. Pleas. Judges remain encouraged to coordinate with prosecutors, attorneys, defendants, and victims in order to utilize section 910.035, Florida Statutes, which allows for pleas of guilty or nolo contendere for persons arrested in counties outside of the county of prosecution, upon the consent of the defendant and the state attorney in the county where the crime was committed.
C. Rights of Parties. In cases that are not handled by a plea or pretrial release such that the defendant will continue to be detained in the jurisdiction of the holding court for an indefinite period of time, chief judges are directed to ensure that the due process rights of the defendant are protected by facilitating the temporary transfer of the case to the holding court, if necessary; by having a judge from the holding court designated by the Chief Justice, or designated by the chief judge if the home and holding court are within the same circuit, as a judge of the home court to handle emergency or other necessary matters in the case; or by other appropriate means.
D. Victims. The constitutional rights of crime victims must also be considered in all cases by the presiding judge.
VI. SPEEDY TRIAL PROCEDURE IN NONCRIMINAL TRAFFIC INFRACTION COURT PROCEEDINGS18
All time periods involving the speedy trial procedure in noncriminal traffic infraction court proceedings remain suspended. The suspension of time limits under the speedy trial procedure restores additional days equal to the number stated in the previous order and this order.VII. SUSPENSION OF TIME PERIODS IN CERTAIN SMALL CLAIMS RULES
All time periods referenced in Florida Small Claims Rule 7.090(b) that are applicable to the clerk of the court in small claims cases are suspended.VIII. WRITS OF POSSESSION19
The requirement in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.580(a) for the clerk to issue a writ of possession “forthwith” remains suspended.IX. FAMILY LAW FORMS20
Except as indicated below, the requirement that Florida Family Law Forms be notarized or signed in the presence of a deputy clerk remains suspended, if the filer includes the following statement before the filer’s signature:Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read this document and the facts stated in it are true.This exception does not apply to Florida Family Law Forms 12.902(f)(1), Marital Settlement Agreement for Dissolution of Marriage with Dependent or Minor Child(ren), 12.902(f)(2), Marital Settlement Agreement for Dissolution of Marriage with Property but No Dependent or Minor Child(ren), 12.902(f)(3), Marital Settlement Agreement for Simplified Dissolution of Marriage, and any other family law form that transfers the ownership of property, which must continue to be notarized or signed in the presence of a deputy clerk prior to filing.
X. VISITATION FOR CHILDREN UNDER THE PROTECTIVE SUPERVISION OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (DCF)21
Requirements for in-person visitation pursuant to circuit court orders entered under chapter 39, Florida Statutes, remain suspended. This order does not affect in-person visitations when all parties and the caregiver agree that the visitation can take place in a manner that does not pose a health threat.In lieu of in-person visitation, visitation shall be conducted through electronic means with video communication as the preferred means, although telephonic contact is permitted if video communication is not feasible. The suspension of in-person visitation applies to parent-child visitation, sibling visitation, and visitation between children and other family members and non-relatives.
If a party seeks to reinstate in-person visitation while the suspension of inperson visitation requirements remains in effect, such reinstatement shall be determined on a case-by-case basis by the circuit court with jurisdiction over that party’s case. Reinstatement of in-person visitation may be ordered if the court determines that it will not jeopardize the health, safety, and well-being of all children and adults (including caregivers) who will be affected by the in-person visitation.
Nothing in these provisions regarding visitation for children under the protective supervision of the DCF overrides existing circuit administrative orders to the extent that those orders are not in conflict with this order. Circuits may enter additional administrative orders addressing visitation and contact pursuant to chapter 39, Florida Statutes, to the extent that they are not in conflict with this order.
* * * * * * * * *
Additional orders extending or modifying these measures will be issued as warranted by changing circumstances during the public health emergency.DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on May 21, 2020.
| |
| Chief Justice Jorge Labarga | |
| ATTEST: | |
| |
| John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court |
John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court
Footnotes
2/ In re: COVID-19 Emergency Procedures in the Florida State Courts, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-13 (March 13, 2020); In re: COVID-19 Essential and Critical Trial Court Proceedings, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-15 (March 17, 2020); In re: COVID-19 Emergency Procedures for the Administering of Oaths via Remote Audio-Video Communication Equipment, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-16 (March 18, 2020); In re: COVID-19 Emergency Measures in the Florida State Courts, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-17 (March 24, 2020);In re: COVID-19 Emergency Procedures in Relation to Visitation for Children Under the Protective Supervision of the Department of Children and Families, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-18 (March 27, 2020); and In re: COVID-19 Emergency Procedures for Speedy Trial in Noncriminal Traffic Infraction Court Proceedings, Fla. Admin Order No. AOSC20-19 (March 30, 2020).
3/ This measure initially went into effect at the close of business on March 13, 2020. (AOSC20-13).
4/ This measure initially went into effect on Friday, March 13, 2020. (AOSC20-13).
5/ This measure initially went into effect on March 18, 2020. (AOSC20-16)
6/ This measure initially went into effect on March 18, 2020. (AOSC20-16)
7/ This measure initially went into effect on March 18, 2020. (AOSC20-16)
8/ The provisions in Section III referencing civil cases apply to small claims, probate, county civil, circuit civil, as well as appellate civil proceedings.
9/ This measure initially went into effect on March 16, 2020. (AOSC20-13).
10/ These measures initially went into effect on March 17, 2020. (AOSC20-15).
11/ A measure related to these proceedings initially went into effect on March 17, 2020. (AOSC20-15). Revisions are made by this amended order.
12/ This includes evidentiary hearings pursuant to section 39.507(7)(b), Florida Statutes, and dependency adjudicatory hearings.
13/ This measure initially went into effect on March 17, 2020. (AOSC20-15).
14/ This measure initially went into effect at the close of business on March 13, 2020. (AOSC20-13 and AOSC20-17).
15/ This measure initially went into effect at the close of business on March 13, 2020. (AOSC20-17).
16/ This measure initially went into effect on March 24, 2020. (AOSC20-17).
17/ These measures initially took effect on March 24, 2020. (AOSC20-17).
18/ This measure initially took effect on March 13, 2020. (AOSC20-19).
19/ This measure initially took effect on March 24, 2020. (AOSC20-17).
20/ This measure initially took effect on March 24, 2020. (AOSC20-17).
21/ These measures initially took effect on March 27, 2020. (AOSC20-18).
AOSC 20-23 (3)
AOSC 20-23 (3) | IN RE: COMPREHENSIVE COVID-19 EMERGENCY MEASURES FOR THE FLORIDA STATE COURTS
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER1
As a result of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the State Surgeon General and State Health Officer on March 1, 2020, declared that a public health emergency exists in Florida, and the Governor on March 9, 2020, declared a state of emergency for the entire state. The Florida state courts have taken measures to mitigate the effects of this public health emergency upon the judicial branch and its participants. To that end, I have issued several administrative orders implementing temporary measures essential to the administration of justice during the COVID-19 pandemic.2 The overarching intent of those orders has been to mitigate the impact of COVID-19, while keeping the courts operating to the fullest extent consistent with public safety.It is the intent of the judicial branch to transition to optimal operations in a manner that protects the public’s health and safety during each of the following anticipated phases of the pandemic:
b) Phase 2 – limited in-person contact is authorized for certain purposes and/or requires use of protective measures;
c) Phase 3 – in-person contact is more broadly authorized and protective measures are relaxed; and
d) Phase 4 – COVID-19 no longer presents a significant risk to public health and safety.
Under the administrative authority conferred upon me by article V, section 2(b) of the Florida Constitution and by Florida Rules of Judicial Administration 2.205(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 2.205(a)(2)(B)(v),
IT IS ORDERED that:
I. GUIDING PRINCIPLES
B. To maintain judicial workflow to the maximum extent feasible, chief judges are directed to take all necessary steps to facilitate conducting proceedings with the use of technology.
C. Nothing in this order is intended to limit a chief judge’s authority to conduct court business or to approve additional court proceedings or events (except for grand jury proceedings, jury selection proceedings, and criminal and civil jury trials, all of which are suspended) that are required in the interest of justice, if doing so is consistent with protecting the health of the participants and the public.
D. Judges and court personnel who can effectively conduct court and judicial branch business from a remote location shall do so. Participants who have the capability of participating by electronic means in remote court proceedings shall do so.
II. USE OF TECHNOLOGY
B. The chief judge of each district court of appeal and each judicial circuit remains authorized to establish procedures for the use, to the maximum extent feasible, of communication equipment for the conducting of proceedings by remote electronic means, as are necessary in their respective district or circuit due to the public health emergency.4
C. Administering of Oaths
(2) If a witness is not located within the State of Florida, a witness may consent to being put on oath via audio-video communication technology by a person qualified to administer an oath in the State of Florida.6
(3) All rules of procedure, court orders, and opinions applicable to remote testimony, depositions, and other legal testimony, including the attestation of family law forms, that can be read to limit or prohibit the use of audio-video communications equipment to administer oaths remotely or to witness the attestation of family law forms, shall remain suspended.7
(4) Notaries and other persons qualified to administer an oath in the State of Florida may swear in new attorneys to The Florida Bar remotely by audio-video communication technology from a location within the State of Florida, provided they can positively identify the new attorney.
(5) For purposes of the provisions regarding the administering of oaths, the term “positively identify” means that the notary or other qualified person can both see and hear the witness or new attorney via audio-video communications equipment for purposes of readily identifying the witness or new attorney.
III. COURT PROCEEDINGS8
B. Remote Civil Jury Trial Pilot Program. A pilot project to identify and evaluate issues relating to the conduct of a civil jury trial through remote means has been authorized through In re: Remote Civil Jury Trial Pilot Program, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-31 (May 21, 2020). Notwithstanding any other provision in this administrative order, judicial circuits selected to participate in the program by the Workgroup on the Continuity of Court Operations and Proceedings During and After COVID-19 may conduct remote civil jury trials pursuant to the requirements established by the workgroup; however, to conduct any portion of those trials in person, the chief judge of the participating judicial circuit must have determined that the circuit or applicable county within the circuit has transitioned to Phase 2 pursuant to Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-32, and must conduct the in-person proceeding in a manner that is consistent with the circuit’s operational plan.
C. Essential and Critical Trial Court Proceedings.10 Essential and critical trial court proceedings should continue to be conducted remotely or, if necessary, in person.
criminal arraignments;
hearings on motions to set or modify monetary bail for individuals who are in custody;
juvenile dependency shelter hearings;
juvenile delinquency detention hearings;
hearings on petitions for injunctions relating to safety of an individual;
hearings on petitions for risk protection orders;
hearings on petitions for the appointment of an emergency temporary guardian;
hearings to determine whether an individual should be involuntarily committed under the Baker Act or the Marchman Act; and
hearings on petitions for extraordinary writs as necessary to protect constitutional rights.
(3) It is recognized that certain essential or critical trial court proceedings in some jurisdictions may in extraordinary, limited circumstances be unavoidably delayed due to the exigencies of the ongoing emergency. When this occurs, chief judges are required to take all steps feasible to minimize the delay.
(4) In conducting essential proceedings and proceedings critical to the state of emergency or the public health emergency, circuit and county courts shall employ all methods feasible to minimize risk of COVID-19 exposure to individuals involved in the proceedings or the general public.
(2) Status, case management, and pretrial conferences in all case types;
(3) Non-evidentiary and evidentiary motion hearings in all case types;
(4) Pleas in absentia in county court misdemeanor cases;
(5) Hearings in juvenile delinquency cases;
(6) Hearings in noncriminal traffic infraction cases;
(7) Hearings in involuntary commitment of sexually violent predator cases;
(8) Problem-solving court staffings, hearings, and wellness checks; and
(9) Non-jury trials in all case types,12 except for:
• Termination of parental rights or juvenile delinquency cases, unless the chief judge or the presiding judge in the case determines that the non-jury trial should proceed remotely.
• Remote conduct of the proceeding would be infeasible because the court, the clerk, or other participant in a proceeding lacks the technological resources necessary to conduct the proceeding or, for reasons directly related to the state of emergency or the public health emergency, lacks the staff resources necessary to conduct the proceeding.
E. Limits on In-person Hearings.13 No proceedings or other court events other than essential proceedings and proceedings critical to the state of emergency or the public health emergency shall be conducted through in-person hearings. However, after the chief judge of a judicial circuit has determined that the circuit has transitioned to Phase 2 pursuant to Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-32, nonessential and non-critical court proceedings that cannot be conducted remotely, because one of the exceptions under III.D. applies, may be conducted in person in a manner consistent with the circuit’s operational plan.
IV. SUSPENSION OF TIME PERIODS IN CERTAIN RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
B. Persons Arrested for First Degree Murder.15 With regard to persons arrested for first degree murder, all time periods under Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.133(b) and 3.134 shall remain suspended through July 17, 2020. The suspension of the time limits of Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.133(b) and 3.134 restores additional days equal to the number stated in the previous orders and this order.
C. Incompetence to Proceed.16 Where exigencies make it impossible to meet the 20-day time period in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.210(b), chief judges of the circuit courts remain authorized to direct judges to hold competency hearings as soon as feasible after the date of filing a motion to determine competency. Chief judges also remain authorized to allow experts and attorneys to conduct and attend competency evaluations by remote means, if feasible.
V. DEFENDANTS ARRESTED ON WARRANT OR CAPIAS FROM ANOTHER FLORIDA JURISDICTION17
To mitigate the health risks associated with the incarceration and transportation of defendants during the pandemic, when a defendant is arrested on a warrant or capias from another Florida jurisdiction, chief judges of the circuit courts remain encouraged to facilitate communication between the circuit or county where the case originated (“home court”) and the circuit or county where the defendant is incarcerated (“holding court”), for the handling of matters on a temporary basis, as follows:For capiases and violation of probation warrants, before setting monetary bond or other conditions of pretrial release, the first appearance judge, in order to make a proper decision regarding monetary bond or other conditions of pretrial release, must rely on relevant information from the following individuals in the county that issued the capias or warrant: the issuing judge, defense counsel if any, and the state attorney.
Action taken by the holding court at first appearance and any pretrial release hearing should be promptly reported to the home court and reflected in the record of the case.
Any provision of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.131 inconsistent with these measures remains suspended.
B. Pleas. Judges remain encouraged to coordinate with prosecutors, attorneys, defendants, and victims in order to utilize section 910.035, Florida Statutes, which allows for pleas of guilty or nolo contendere for persons arrested in counties outside of the county of prosecution, upon the consent of the defendant and the state attorney in the county where the crime was committed.
C. Rights of Parties. In cases that are not handled by a plea or pretrial release such that the defendant will continue to be detained in the jurisdiction of the holding court for an indefinite period of time, chief judges are directed to ensure that the due process rights of the defendant are protected by facilitating the temporary transfer of the case to the holding court, if necessary; by having a judge from the holding court designated by the Chief Justice, or designated by the chief judge if the home and holding court are within the same circuit, as a judge of the home court to handle emergency or other necessary matters in the case; or by other appropriate means.
D. Victims. The constitutional rights of crime victims must also be considered in all cases by the presiding judge.
VI. SPEEDY TRIAL PROCEDURE IN NONCRIMINAL TRAFFIC INFRACTION COURT PROCEEDINGS18
All time periods involving the speedy trial procedure in noncriminal traffic infraction court proceedings remain suspended. The suspension of time limits under the speedy trial procedure restores additional days equal to the number stated in the previous orders and this order.VII. SUSPENSION OF TIME PERIODS IN CERTAIN SMALL CLAIMS RULES
All time periods referenced in Florida Small Claims Rule 7.090(b) that are applicable to the clerk of the court in small claims cases are suspended.VIII. WRITS OF POSSESSION19
The requirement in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.580(a) for the clerk to issue a writ of possession “forthwith” remains suspended through June 30, 2020.IX. FAMILY LAW FORMS20
Except as indicated below, the requirement that Florida Family Law Forms be notarized or signed in the presence of a deputy clerk remains suspended, if the filer includes the following statement before the filer’s signature:Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read this document and the facts stated in it are true.This exception does not apply to Florida Family Law Forms 12.902(f)(1), Marital Settlement Agreement for Dissolution of Marriage with Dependent or Minor Child(ren), 12.902(f)(2), Marital Settlement Agreement for Dissolution of Marriage with Property but No Dependent or Minor Child(ren), 12.902(f)(3), Marital Settlement Agreement for Simplified Dissolution of Marriage, and any other family law form that transfers the ownership of property, which must continue to be notarized or signed in the presence of a deputy clerk prior to filing.
X. VISITATION FOR CHILDREN UNDER THE PROTECTIVE SUPERVISION OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (DCF)21
Requirements for in-person visitation pursuant to circuit court orders entered under chapter 39, Florida Statutes, remain suspended. This order does not affect in-person visitations when all parties and the caregiver agree that the visitation can take place in a manner that does not pose a health threat.In lieu of in-person visitation, visitation shall be conducted through electronic means with video communication as the preferred means, although telephonic contact is permitted if video communication is not feasible. The suspension of in-person visitation applies to parent-child visitation, sibling visitation, and visitation between children and other family members and non-relatives.
If a party seeks to reinstate in-person visitation while the suspension of inperson visitation requirements remains in effect, such reinstatement shall be determined on a case-by-case basis by the circuit court with jurisdiction over that party’s case. Reinstatement of in-person visitation may be ordered if the court determines that it will not jeopardize the health, safety, and well-being of all children and adults (including caregivers) who will be affected by the in-person visitation.
Nothing in these provisions regarding visitation for children under the protective supervision of the DCF overrides existing circuit administrative orders to the extent that those orders are not in conflict with this order. Circuits may enter additional administrative orders addressing visitation and contact pursuant to chapter 39, Florida Statutes, to the extent that they are not in conflict with this order.
* * * * * * * * *
Additional orders extending or modifying these measures will be issued as warranted by changing circumstances during the public health emergency.DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on June 8, 2020.
| |
| Chief Justice Jorge Labarga | |
| ATTEST: | |
| |
| John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court |
John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court
Footnotes
2/ In re: COVID-19 Emergency Procedures in the Florida State Courts, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-13 (March 13, 2020); In re: COVID-19 Essential and Critical Trial Court Proceedings, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-15 (March 17, 2020); In re: COVID-19 Emergency Procedures for the Administering of Oaths via Remote Audio-Video Communication Equipment, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-16 (March 18, 2020); In re: COVID-19 Emergency Measures in the Florida State Courts, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-17 (March 24, 2020);In re: COVID-19 Emergency Procedures in Relation to Visitation for Children Under the Protective Supervision of the Department of Children and Families, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-18 (March 27, 2020); and In re: COVID-19 Emergency Procedures for Speedy Trial in Noncriminal Traffic Infraction Court Proceedings, Fla. Admin Order No. AOSC20-19 (March 30, 2020).
3/ This measure initially went into effect at the close of business on March 13, 2020. (AOSC20-13).
4/ This measure initially went into effect on Friday, March 13, 2020. (AOSC20-13).
5/ This measure initially went into effect on March 18, 2020. (AOSC20-16)
6/ This measure initially went into effect on March 18, 2020. (AOSC20-16)
7/ This measure initially went into effect on March 18, 2020. (AOSC20-16)
8/ The provisions in Section III referencing civil cases apply to small claims, probate, county civil, circuit civil, as well as appellate civil proceedings.
9/ This measure initially went into effect on March 16, 2020. (AOSC20-13).
10/ These measures initially went into effect on March 17, 2020. (AOSC20-15).
11/ A measure related to these proceedings initially went into effect on March 17, 2020. (AOSC20-15).
12/ This includes evidentiary hearings pursuant to section 39.507(7)(b), Florida Statutes, and dependency adjudicatory hearings.
13/ This measure initially went into effect on March 17, 2020. (AOSC20-15).
14/ This measure initially went into effect at the close of business on March 13, 2020. (AOSC20-13 and AOSC20-17).
15/ This measure initially went into effect at the close of business on March 13, 2020. (AOSC20-17).
16/ This measure initially went into effect on March 24, 2020. (AOSC20-17).
17/ These measures initially took effect on March 24, 2020. (AOSC20-17).
18/ This measure initially took effect on March 13, 2020. (AOSC20-19).
19/ This measure initially took effect on March 24, 2020. (AOSC20-17).
20/ This measure initially took effect on March 24, 2020. (AOSC20-17).
21/ These measures initially took effect on March 27, 2020. (AOSC20-18).
AOSC 20-23 (4)
AOSC 20-23 (4) | IN RE: COMPREHENSIVE COVID-19 EMERGENCY MEASURES FOR THE FLORIDA STATE COURTS
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER1
As a result of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the State Surgeon General and State Health Officer on March 1, 2020, declared that a public health emergency exists in Florida, and the Governor on March 9, 2020, declared a state of emergency for the entire state. The Florida state courts have taken measures to mitigate the effects of this public health emergency upon the judicial branch and its participants. To that end, I have issued several administrative orders implementing temporary measures essential to the administration of justice during the COVID-19 pandemic.2 The overarching intent of those orders has been to mitigate the impact of COVID-19, while keeping the courts operating to the fullest extent consistent with public safety.It is the intent of the judicial branch to transition to optimal operations in a manner that protects the public’s health and safety during each of the following anticipated phases of the pandemic:
b) Phase 2 – limited in-person contact is authorized for certain purposes and/or requires use of protective measures;
c) Phase 3 – in-person contact is more broadly authorized and protective measures are relaxed; and
d) Phase 4 – COVID-19 no longer presents a significant risk to public health and safety.
Under the administrative authority conferred upon me by article V, section 2(b) of the Florida Constitution and by Florida Rules of Judicial Administration 2.205(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 2.205(a)(2)(B)(v),
IT IS ORDERED that:
I. GUIDING PRINCIPLES
B. To maintain judicial workflow to the maximum extent feasible, chief judges are directed to take all necessary steps to facilitate the remote conduct of proceedings with the use of technology. For purposes of this administrative order, “remote conduct” or “conducted remotely” means the conduct, in part or in whole, of a court proceeding using telephonic or other electronic means.
C. Nothing in this order is intended to limit a chief judge’s authority to conduct court business or to approve additional court proceedings or events that are required in the interest of justice, if doing so is consistent with this administrative order and protecting the health of the participants and the public.
D. Judges and court personnel who can effectively conduct court and judicial branch business from a remote location shall do so. Participants who have the capability of participating by electronic means in remote court proceedings shall do so.
II. USE OF TECHNOLOGY
B. The chief judge of each district court of appeal and each judicial circuit remains authorized to establish procedures for the use, to the maximum extent feasible, of communication equipment for the remote conduct of proceedings, as are necessary in their respective district or circuit due to the public health emergency.4
C. Administering of Oaths
(2) If a witness is not located within the State of Florida, a witness may consent to being put on oath via audio-video communication technology by a person qualified to administer an oath in the State of Florida.6
(3) All rules of procedure, court orders, and opinions applicable to remote testimony, depositions, and other legal testimony, including the attestation of family law forms, that can be read to limit or prohibit the use of audio-video communications equipment to administer oaths remotely or to witness the attestation of family law forms, shall remain suspended.7
(4) Notaries and other persons qualified to administer an oath in the State of Florida may swear in new attorneys to The Florida Bar remotely by audio-video communication technology from a location within the State of Florida, provided they can positively identify the new attorney.
(5) For purposes of the provisions regarding the administering of oaths, the term “positively identify” means that the notary or other qualified person can both see and hear the witness or new attorney via audio-video communications equipment for purposes of readily identifying the witness or new attorney.
III. COURT PROCEEDINGS
B. Remote Civil Jury Trial Pilot Program. A pilot project to identify and evaluate issues relating to the conduct of a civil jury trial through remote means has been authorized through In re: Remote Civil Jury Trial Pilot Program, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-31, Amendment 1 (June 8, 2020). Notwithstanding any other provision in this administrative order, judicial circuits selected to participate in the program by the Workgroup on the Continuity of Court Operations and Proceedings During and After COVID-19 may conduct remote civil jury trials pursuant to the requirements established by the workgroup. If any portion of those trials will be conducted in person, such conduct must be consistent with Section III.F.
C. Juror Excusals and Postponements. For purposes of limiting in-person contact to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 and of addressing hardships related to the pandemic, each chief judge of a judicial circuit shall direct the clerks of court to create a process that will enable the automatic:
• Is a person at higher risk for severe illness due to COVID-19 infection as identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and requests to be excused;
• Must care for a child or relative whose regular care provider is closed or unavailable for reasons related to COVID-19; or
• Is receiving leave pursuant to the Families First Coronavirus Response Act.
• Has suffered a financial or personal loss due to COVID-19 that makes it a hardship to perform jury service.9
criminal arraignments;
hearings on motions to set or modify monetary bail for individuals who are in custody;
juvenile dependency shelter hearings;
juvenile delinquency detention hearings;
hearings on petitions for injunctions relating to safety of an individual;
hearings on petitions for risk protection orders;
hearings on petitions for the appointment of an emergency temporary guardian;
hearings to determine whether an individual should be involuntarily committed under the Baker Act or the Marchman Act; and
hearings on petitions for extraordinary writs as necessary to protect constitutional rights.
(3) It is recognized that certain essential or critical trial court proceedings in some jurisdictions may in extraordinary, limited circumstances be unavoidably delayed due to the exigencies of the ongoing emergency. When this occurs, chief judges are required to take all steps feasible to minimize the delay.
(4) In conducting essential proceedings and proceedings critical to the state of emergency or the public health emergency, circuit and county courts shall employ all methods feasible to minimize risk of COVID-19 exposure to individuals involved in the proceedings or the general public.
(2) Grand jury selection and proceedings, other than statewide grand jury selection and proceedings; civil jury selection and trials; and criminal jury selection and trials shall be conducted in person after the suspension of these proceedings ends pursuant to Section III.A.
(3) Non-jury trials in:
• Termination of parental rights and juvenile delinquency cases shall be conducted remotely if ordered by the chief judge or the presiding judge or, if not, shall be conducted in person.
• Remote conduct of the proceeding would be infeasible because the court, the clerk, or other participant in a proceeding lacks the technological resources necessary to conduct the proceeding or, for reasons directly related to the state of emergency or the public health emergency, lacks the staff resources necessary to conduct the proceeding.
IV. SUSPENSION OF TIME PERIODS IN CERTAIN RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
B. Persons Arrested for First Degree Murder.14 With regard to persons arrested for first degree murder, all time periods under Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.133(b) and 3.134 shall remain suspended until such time as grand jury proceedings are resumed pursuant to Section III.A. The suspension of the time limits of Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.133(b) and 3.134 restores additional days equal to the number stated in the previous orders and this order.
C. Incompetence to Proceed.15 Where exigencies make it impossible to meet the 20-day time period in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.210(b), chief judges of the circuit courts remain authorized to direct judges to hold competency hearings as soon as feasible after the date of filing a motion to determine competency. Chief judges also remain authorized to allow experts and attorneys to conduct and attend competency evaluations by remote means, if feasible.
V. DEFENDANTS ARRESTED ON WARRANT OR CAPIAS FROM ANOTHER FLORIDA JURISDICTION16
To mitigate the health risks associated with the incarceration and transportation of defendants during the pandemic, when a defendant is arrested on a warrant or capias from another Florida jurisdiction, chief judges of the circuit courts remain encouraged to facilitate communication between the circuit or county where the case originated (“home court”) and the circuit or county where the defendant is incarcerated (“holding court”), for the handling of matters on a temporary basis, as follows:For capiases and violation of probation warrants, before setting monetary bond or other conditions of pretrial release, the first appearance judge, in order to make a proper decision regarding monetary bond or other conditions of pretrial release, must rely on relevant information from the following individuals in the county that issued the capias or warrant: the issuing judge, defense counsel if any, and the state attorney.
Action taken by the holding court at first appearance and any pretrial release hearing should be promptly reported to the home court and reflected in the record of the case.
Any provision of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.131 inconsistent with these measures remains suspended.
B. Pleas. Judges remain encouraged to coordinate with prosecutors, attorneys, defendants, and victims in order to utilize section 910.035, Florida Statutes, which allows for pleas of guilty or nolo contendere for persons arrested in counties outside of the county of prosecution, upon the consent of the defendant and the state attorney in the county where the crime was committed.
C. Rights of Parties. In cases that are not handled by a plea or pretrial release such that the defendant will continue to be detained in the jurisdiction of the holding court for an indefinite period of time, chief judges are directed to ensure that the due process rights of the defendant are protected by facilitating the temporary transfer of the case to the holding court, if necessary; by having a judge from the holding court designated by the Chief Justice, or designated by the chief judge if the home and holding court are within the same circuit, as a judge of the home court to handle emergency or other necessary matters in the case; or by other appropriate means.
D. Victims. The constitutional rights of crime victims must also be considered in all cases by the presiding judge.
VI. SPEEDY TRIAL PROCEDURE IN NONCRIMINAL TRAFFIC INFRACTION COURT PROCEEDINGS17
All time periods involving the speedy trial procedure in noncriminal traffic infraction court proceedings remain suspended until 60 days after the chief judge of a judicial circuit has determined that the circuit or a county within the circuit has transitioned to Phase 2 pursuant to Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-32, Amendment 1, or 60 days after the effective date of this administrative order, whichever date is later. The suspension of time limits under the speedy trial procedure restores additional days equal to the number stated in the previous orders and this order.VII. SUSPENSION OF TIME PERIODS IN CERTAIN SMALL CLAIMS RULES
All time periods referenced in Florida Small Claims Rule 7.090(b) that are applicable to the clerk of the court in small claims cases are suspended.VIII. WRITS OF POSSESSION18
The requirement in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.580(a) for the clerk to issue a writ of possession “forthwith” remains suspended through June 30, 2020.IX. FAMILY LAW FORMS19
Except as indicated below, the requirement that Florida Family Law Forms be notarized or signed in the presence of a deputy clerk remains suspended, if the filer includes the following statement before the filer’s signature:Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read this document and the facts stated in it are true.This exception does not apply to Florida Family Law Forms 12.902(f)(1), Marital Settlement Agreement for Dissolution of Marriage with Dependent or Minor Child(ren), 12.902(f)(2), Marital Settlement Agreement for Dissolution of Marriage with Property but No Dependent or Minor Child(ren), 12.902(f)(3), Marital Settlement Agreement for Simplified Dissolution of Marriage, and any other family law form that transfers the ownership of property, which must continue to be notarized or signed in the presence of a deputy clerk prior to filing.
X. VISITATION FOR CHILDREN UNDER THE PROTECTIVE SUPERVISION OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (DCF)20
Requirements for in-person visitation pursuant to circuit court orders entered under chapter 39, Florida Statutes, remain suspended. This order does not affect in-person visitations when all parties and the caregiver agree that the visitation can take place in a manner that does not pose a health threat.In lieu of in-person visitation, visitation shall be conducted through electronic means with video communication as the preferred means, although telephonic contact is permitted if video communication is not feasible.
The suspension of in-person visitation applies to parent-child visitation, sibling visitation, and visitation between children and other family members and non-relatives.
If a party seeks to reinstate in-person visitation while the suspension of inperson visitation requirements remains in effect, such reinstatement shall be determined on a case-by-case basis by the circuit court with jurisdiction over that party’s case. Reinstatement of in-person visitation may be ordered if the court determines that it will not jeopardize the health, safety, and well-being of all children and adults (including caregivers) who will be affected by the in-person visitation.
Nothing in these provisions regarding visitation for children under the protective supervision of the DCF overrides existing circuit administrative orders to the extent that those orders are not in conflict with this order. Circuits may enter additional administrative orders addressing visitation and contact pursuant to chapter 39, Florida Statutes, to the extent that they are not in conflict with this order.
* * * * * * * * *
Additional orders extending or modifying these measures will be issued as warranted by changing circumstances during the public health emergency.DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on June 16, 2020.
| |
| Chief Justice Jorge Labarga | |
| ATTEST: | |
| |
| John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court |
John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court
Footnotes
2/ In re: COVID-19 Emergency Procedures in the Florida State Courts, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-13 (March 13, 2020); In re: COVID-19 Essential and Critical Trial Court Proceedings, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-15 (March 17, 2020); In re: COVID-19 Emergency Procedures for the Administering of Oaths via Remote Audio-Video Communication Equipment, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-16 (March 18, 2020); In re: COVID-19 Emergency Measures in the Florida State Courts, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-17 (March 24, 2020);In re: COVID-19 Emergency Procedures in Relation to Visitation for Children Under the Protective Supervision of the Department of Children and Families, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-18 (March 27, 2020); and In re: COVID-19 Emergency Procedures for Speedy Trial in Noncriminal Traffic Infraction Court Proceedings, Fla. Admin Order No. AOSC20-19 (March 30, 2020).
3/ This measure initially went into effect at the close of business on March 13, 2020. (AOSC20-13).
4/ This measure initially went into effect on Friday, March 13, 2020. (AOSC20-13).
5/ This measure initially went into effect on March 18, 2020. (AOSC20-16).
6/ This measure initially went into effect on March 18, 2020. (AOSC20-16).
7/ This measure initially went into effect on March 18, 2020. (AOSC20-16).
8/ This measure initially went into effect on March 16, 2020. (AOSC20-13).
9/ Postponements are subject to the six-month statutory maximum specified in section 40.23(2), Florida Statutes. If granting a postponement based on one or both of these reasons would exceed the statutory maximum because of a previous postponement granted to a potential juror, the chief judge or the presiding judge is encouraged to consider whether to grant an excusal based on either reason.
10/ These measures initially went into effect on March 17, 2020. (AOSC20-15).
11/ A measure related to these proceedings initially went into effect on March 17, 2020. (AOSC20-15).
12/ This measure initially went into effect on March 17, 2020. (AOSC20-15).
13/ This measure initially went into effect at the close of business on March 13, 2020. (AOSC20-13 and AOSC20-17).
14/ This measure initially went into effect at the close of business on March 13, 2020. (AOSC20-17).
15/ This measure initially went into effect on March 24, 2020. (AOSC20-17).
16/ These measures initially took effect on March 24, 2020. (AOSC20-17).
17/ This measure initially took effect on March 13, 2020. (AOSC20-19).
18/ This measure initially took effect on March 24, 2020. (AOSC20-17).
19/ This measure initially took effect on March 24, 2020. (AOSC20-17).
20/ These measures initially took effect on March 27, 2020. (AOSC20-18).
AOSC 20-23 (5)
AOSC 20-23 (5) | IN RE: COMPREHENSIVE COVID-19 EMERGENCY MEASURES FOR THE FLORIDA STATE COURTS
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER1
As a result of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the State Surgeon General and State Health Officer on March 1, 2020, declared that a public health emergency exists in Florida, and the Governor on March 9, 2020, declared a state of emergency for the entire state. The Florida state courts have taken measures to mitigate the effects of this public health emergency upon the judicial branch and its participants. To that end, I have issued several administrative orders implementing temporary measures essential to the administration of justice during the COVID-19 pandemic.2 The overarching intent of those orders has been to mitigate the impact of COVID-19, while keeping the courts operating to the fullest extent consistent with public safety.It is the intent of the judicial branch to transition to optimal operations in a manner that protects the public’s health and safety during each of the following anticipated phases of the pandemic:
b) Phase 2 – limited in-person contact is authorized for certain purposes and/or requires use of protective measures;
c) Phase 3 – in-person contact is more broadly authorized and protective measures are relaxed; and
d) Phase 4 – COVID-19 no longer presents a significant risk to public health and safety.
Under the administrative authority conferred upon me by article V, section 2(b) of the Florida Constitution and by Florida Rules of Judicial Administration 2.205(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 2.205(a)(2)(B)(v),
IT IS ORDERED that:
I. GUIDING PRINCIPLES
B. To maintain judicial workflow to the maximum extent feasible, chief judges are directed to take all necessary steps to facilitate the remote conduct of proceedings with the use of technology. For purposes of this administrative order, “remote conduct” or “conducted remotely” means the conduct, in part or in whole, of a court proceeding using telephonic or other electronic means.
C. Nothing in this order is intended to limit a chief judge’s authority to conduct court business or to approve additional court proceedings or events that are required in the interest of justice, if doing so is consistent with this administrative order and protecting the health of the participants and the public.
D. Judges and court personnel who can effectively conduct court and judicial branch business from a remote location shall do so. Participants who have the capability of participating by electronic means in remote court proceedings shall do so.
II. USE OF TECHNOLOGY
B. The chief judge of each district court of appeal and each judicial circuit remains authorized to establish procedures for the use, to the maximum extent feasible, of communication equipment for the remote conduct of proceedings, as are necessary in their respective district or circuit due to the public health emergency.4
C. Administering of Oaths
(2) If a witness is not located within the State of Florida, a witness may consent to being put on oath via audio-video communication technology by a person qualified to administer an oath in the State of Florida.6
(3) All rules of procedure, court orders, and opinions applicable to remote testimony, depositions, and other legal testimony, including the attestation of family law forms, that can be read to limit or prohibit the use of audio-video communications equipment to administer oaths remotely or to witness the attestation of family law forms shall remain suspended.7
(4) Notaries and other persons qualified to administer an oath in the State of Florida may swear in new attorneys to The Florida Bar remotely by audio-video communication technology from a location within the State of Florida, provided they can positively identify the new attorney.
(5) For purposes of the provisions regarding the administering of oaths, the term “positively identify” means that the notary or other qualified person can both see and hear the witness or new attorney via audio-video communications equipment for purposes of readily identifying the witness or new attorney.
(2) In a law school practice program, the requirement in Rule 11-1.2(b) of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar that an indigent person and the supervising attorney must consent in writing to representation by a supervised law student may be satisfied by the judge receiving the consent verbally under oath.
III. COURT PROCEEDINGS
The following provisions govern the conduct of court proceedings, except as modified by Section X., addressing reversions to a previous phase by a circuit or a county within the circuit.• The circuit has transitioned to Phase 2 or Phase 3 pursuant to Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-32, Amendment 2, and the proceeding is conducted in a manner that is consistent with the circuit’s operational plan.
(3) Additional days equal to the number of days for which grand jury proceedings are suspended shall be restored to the term of the impaneled statewide grand jury or other impaneled grand jury; however, the number of days restored may not exceed the number of days the impaneled grand jury had remaining in its term when the suspension began.
(2) The circuit or a county within the circuit must have transitioned to Phase 2 or Phase 3 pursuant to Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-32, Amendment 2, and the proceeding must be conducted in a manner that is consistent with the circuit’s operational plan.
b. Is a person at higher risk for severe illness due to COVID-19 infection as identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and requests to be excused;
c. Must care for a child or relative whose regular care provider is closed or unavailable for reasons related to COVID-19; or
d. Is receiving leave pursuant to the Families First Coronavirus Response Act.
b. Has suffered a financial or personal loss due to COVID-19 that makes it a hardship to perform jury service.9
criminal arraignments;
hearings on motions to set or modify monetary bail for individuals who are in custody;
juvenile dependency shelter hearings;
juvenile delinquency detention hearings;
hearings on petitions for injunctions relating to safety of an individual;
hearings on petitions for risk protection orders;
hearings on petitions for the appointment of an emergency temporary guardian;
hearings to determine whether an individual should be involuntarily committed under the Baker Act or the Marchman Act; and
hearings on petitions for extraordinary writs as necessary to protect constitutional rights.
(3) It is recognized that certain essential or critical trial court proceedings in some jurisdictions may in extraordinary, limited circumstances be unavoidably delayed due to the exigencies of the ongoing emergency. When this occurs, chief judges are required to take all steps feasible to minimize the delay.
(4) In conducting essential proceedings and proceedings critical to the state of emergency or the public health emergency, circuit and county courts shall employ all methods feasible to minimize risk of COVID-19 exposure to individuals involved in the proceedings or the general public.
(2) Non-jury trials in:
b. Termination of parental rights and juvenile delinquency cases shall be conducted remotely if ordered by the chief judge or the presiding judge or, if not, shall be conducted in person.
b. Remote conduct of the proceeding would be infeasible because the court, the clerk, or other participant in a proceeding lacks the technological resources necessary to conduct the proceeding or, for reasons directly related to the state of emergency or the public health emergency, lacks the staff resources necessary to conduct the proceeding.
IV. SUSPENSION OF TIME PERIODS IN CERTAIN RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
(2) This suspension shall be applied in the manner described in Sullivan v. State, 913 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), and State v. Hernandez, 617 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1993). The suspension of time limits under the speedy trial procedure restores additional days equal to the number stated in the previous orders and this order. Additionally, when the time periods involving the speedy trial procedure in criminal and juvenile court proceedings are no longer suspended in a circuit or county within a circuit, each of the 10-day time periods in Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.191(p)(3) and Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.090(m)(3) shall be increased to 30 days until such time as the circuit or county within a circuit has transitioned to Phase 4.
(2) Be suspended during any period of time in which grand jury proceedings are suspended under Section III.A.(1)b. or X.B. The suspension of the time limits of Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.133(b) and 3.134 restores additional days equal to the number of days of the suspension under Section III.A.(1)b. or X.B.
V. DEFENDANTS ARRESTED ON WARRANT OR CAPIAS FROM ANOTHER FLORIDA JURISDICTION16
To mitigate the health risks associated with the incarceration and transportation of defendants during the pandemic, when a defendant is arrested on a warrant or capias from another Florida jurisdiction, chief judges of the circuit courts remain encouraged to facilitate communication between the circuit or county where the case originated (“home court”) and the circuit or county where the defendant is incarcerated (“holding court”), for the handling of matters on a temporary basis, as follows:For capiases and violation of probation warrants, before setting monetary bond or other conditions of pretrial release, the first appearance judge, in order to make a proper decision regarding monetary bond or other conditions of pretrial release, must rely on relevant information from the following individuals in the county that issued the capias or warrant: the issuing judge, defense counsel if any, and the state attorney.
Action taken by the holding court at first appearance and any pretrial release hearing should be promptly reported to the home court and reflected in the record of the case.
Any provision of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.131 inconsistent with these measures remains suspended.
B. Pleas. Judges remain encouraged to coordinate with prosecutors, attorneys, defendants, and victims in order to utilize section 910.035, Florida Statutes, which allows for pleas of guilty or nolo contendere for persons arrested in counties outside of the county of prosecution, upon the consent of the defendant and the state attorney in the county where the crime was committed.
C. Rights of Parties. In cases that are not handled by a plea or pretrial release such that the defendant will continue to be detained in the jurisdiction of the holding court for an indefinite period of time, chief judges are directed to ensure that the due process rights of the defendant are protected by facilitating the temporary transfer of the case to the holding court, if necessary; by having a judge from the holding court designated by the Chief Justice, or designated by the chief judge if the home and holding court are within the same circuit, as a judge of the home court to handle emergency or other necessary matters in the case; or by other appropriate means.
D. Victims. The constitutional rights of crime victims must also be considered in all cases by the presiding judge.
VI. SPEEDY TRIAL PROCEDURE IN NONCRIMINAL TRAFFIC INFRACTION COURT PROCEEDINGS17
All time periods involving the speedy trial procedure in noncriminal traffic infraction court proceedings remain suspended. The suspension of time limits under the speedy trial procedure restores additional days equal to the number stated in the previous orders and this order.VII. SUSPENSION OF TIME PERIODS IN CERTAIN SMALL CLAIMS RULES
All time periods referenced in Florida Small Claims Rule 7.090(b) that are applicable to the clerk of the court in small claims cases are suspended through October 30, 2020.VIII. FAMILY LAW FORMS18
Except as indicated below, the requirement that Florida Family Law Forms be notarized or signed in the presence of a deputy clerk remains suspended, if the filer includes the following statement before the filer’s signature:Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read this document and the facts stated in it are true.This exception does not apply to Florida Family Law Forms 12.902(f)(1), Marital Settlement Agreement for Dissolution of Marriage with Dependent or Minor Child(ren), 12.902(f)(2), Marital Settlement Agreement for Dissolution of Marriage with Property but No Dependent or Minor Child(ren), 12.902(f)(3), Marital Settlement Agreement for Simplified Dissolution of Marriage, and any other family law form that transfers the ownership of property, which must continue to be notarized or signed in the presence of a deputy clerk prior to filing.
IX. VISITATION FOR CHILDREN UNDER THE PROTECTIVE SUPERVISION OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (DCF)19
Requirements for in-person visitation pursuant to circuit court orders entered under chapter 39, Florida Statutes, remain suspended. This order does not affect in-person visitations when all parties and the caregiver agree that the visitation can take place in a manner that does not pose a health threat.In lieu of in-person visitation, visitation shall be conducted through electronic means with video communication as the preferred means, although telephonic contact is permitted if video communication is not feasible. The suspension of in-person visitation applies to parent-child visitation, sibling visitation, and visitation between children and other family members and non-relatives.
If a party seeks to reinstate in-person visitation while the suspension of inperson visitation requirements remains in effect, such reinstatement shall be determined on a case-by-case basis by the circuit court with jurisdiction over that party’s case. Reinstatement of in-person visitation may be ordered if the court determines that it will not jeopardize the health, safety, and well-being of all children and adults (including caregivers) who will be affected by the in-person visitation.
Nothing in these provisions regarding visitation for children under the protective supervision of the DCF overrides existing circuit administrative orders to the extent that those orders are not in conflict with this order. Circuits may enter additional administrative orders addressing visitation and contact pursuant to chapter 39, Florida Statutes, to the extent that they are not in conflict with this order.
X. REVERSION TO A PREVIOUS PHASE
If a circuit or a county within the circuit reverts to a previous phase, as addressed in Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-32, Amendment 2, the following provisions govern.(2) Were commenced before the reversion may proceed to completion in person if the chief judge determines that completion of the proceeding without delay is required by the interests of justice and determines, under consultation with the county health department or local health expert, that the in-person proceeding can be conducted in a manner that protects the health and safety of all participants. The requirements of the double jeopardy clause must be considered in criminal proceedings.
C. Speedy Trial. If a circuit or a county within the circuit reverts from Phase 3 to Phase 1 or Phase 2, all time periods involving the speedy trial procedure in criminal and juvenile court proceedings are suspended until 90 days after the Chief Justice has approved the recertification of a chief judge of a judicial circuit that the circuit or county within the circuit has again transitioned to Phase 3 pursuant to Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-32, Amendment 2. The provisions of Section IV.A.(2) apply except that the suspension of time limits under this section restores additional days equal to the number of days of the suspension under this section.
* * *
Additional orders extending or modifying these measures will be issued as warranted by changing circumstances during the public health emergency.DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on July 2, 2020.
| |
| Chief Justice Jorge Labarga | |
| ATTEST: | |
| |
| John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court |
John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court
Footnotes
2/ In re: COVID-19 Emergency Procedures in the Florida State Courts, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-13 (March 13, 2020); In re: COVID-19 Essential and Critical Trial Court Proceedings, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-15 (March 17, 2020); In re: COVID-19 Emergency Procedures for the Administering of Oaths via Remote Audio-Video Communication Equipment, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-16 (March 18, 2020); In re: COVID-19 Emergency Measures in the Florida State Courts, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-17 (March 24, 2020);In re: COVID-19 Emergency Procedures in Relation to Visitation for Children Under the Protective Supervision of the Department of Children and Families, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-18 (March 27, 2020); and In re: COVID-19 Emergency Procedures for Speedy Trial in Noncriminal Traffic Infraction Court Proceedings, Fla. Admin Order No. AOSC20-19 (March 30, 2020).
3/ This measure initially went into effect at the close of business on March 13, 2020. (AOSC20-13).
4/ This measure initially went into effect on Friday, March 13, 2020. (AOSC20-13).
5/ This measure initially went into effect on March 18, 2020. (AOSC20-16)
6/ This measure initially went into effect on March 18, 2020. (AOSC20-16)
7/ This measure initially went into effect on March 18, 2020. (AOSC20-16)
8/ This measure initially went into effect on March 16, 2020. (AOSC20-13).
9/ Postponements are subject to the six-month statutory maximum specified in section 40.23(2), Florida Statutes. If granting a postponement based on one or both of these reasons would exceed the statutory maximum because of a previous postponement granted to a potential juror, the chief judge or the presiding judge is encouraged to consider whether to grant an excusal based on either reason.
10/ These measures initially went into effect on March 17, 2020. (AOSC20-15).
11/ A measure related to these proceedings initially went into effect on March 17, 2020. (AOSC20-15).
12/ This measure initially went into effect on March 17, 2020. (AOSC20-15).
13/ This measure initially went into effect at the close of business on March 13, 2020. (AOSC20-13 and AOSC20-17).
14/ This measure initially went into effect at the close of business on March 13, 2020. (AOSC20-17).
15/ This measure initially went into effect on March 24, 2020. (AOSC20-17).
16/ These measures initially took effect on March 24, 2020. (AOSC20-17).
17/ This measure initially took effect on March 13, 2020. (AOSC20-19).
18/ This measure initially took effect on March 24, 2020. (AOSC20-17).
19/ These measures initially took effect on March 27, 2020. (AOSC20-18).
AOSC 20-23 (6)
AOSC 20-23 (6) | IN RE: COMPREHENSIVE COVID-19 EMERGENCY MEASURES FOR THE FLORIDA STATE COURTS
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER1
As a result of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the State Surgeon General and State Health Officer on March 1, 2020, declared that a public health emergency exists in Florida, and the Governor on March 9, 2020, declared a state of emergency for the entire state. The Florida state courts have taken measures to mitigate the effects of this public health emergency upon the judicial branch and its participants. To that end, I have issued several administrative orders implementing temporary measures essential to the administration of justice during the COVID-19 pandemic.2 The overarching intent of those orders has been to mitigate the impact of COVID-19, while keeping the courts operating to the fullest extent consistent with public safety.It is the intent of the judicial branch to transition to optimal operations in a manner that protects the public’s health and safety during each of the following anticipated phases of the pandemic:
b) Phase 2 – limited in-person contact is authorized for certain purposes and/or requires use of protective measures;
c) Phase 3 – in-person contact is more broadly authorized and protective measures are relaxed; and
d) Phase 4 – COVID-19 no longer presents a significant risk to public health and safety.
Under the administrative authority conferred upon me by article V, section 2(b) of the Florida Constitution, by Florida Rules of Judicial Administration 2.205(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 2.205(a)(2)(B)(v), and by Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 1-12.1(j),
IT IS ORDERED that:
I. GUIDING PRINCIPLES
B. To maintain judicial workflow to the maximum extent feasible, chief judges are directed to take all necessary steps to facilitate the remote conduct of proceedings with the use of technology. For purposes of this administrative order, “remote conduct” or “conducted remotely” means the conduct, in part or in whole, of a court proceeding using telephonic or other electronic means.
C. Nothing in this order is intended to limit a chief judge’s authority to conduct court business or to approve additional court proceedings or events that are required in the interest of justice, if doing so is consistent with this administrative order and protecting the health of the participants and the public.
D. Judges and court personnel who can effectively conduct court and judicial branch business from a remote location shall do so. Participants who have the capability of participating by electronic means in remote court proceedings shall do so.
II. USE OF TECHNOLOGY
B. The chief judge of each district court of appeal and each judicial circuit remains authorized to establish procedures for the use, to the maximum extent feasible, of communication equipment for the remote conduct of proceedings, as are necessary in their respective district or circuit due to the public health emergency.4
C. Administering of Oaths
(2) If a witness is not located within the State of Florida, a witness may consent to being put on oath via audio-video communication technology by a person qualified to administer an oath in the State of Florida.6
(3) All rules of procedure, court orders, and opinions applicable to remote testimony, depositions, and other legal testimony, including the attestation of family law forms, that can be read to limit or prohibit the use of audio-video communications equipment to administer oaths remotely or to witness the attestation of family law forms shall remain suspended.7
(4) Notaries and other persons qualified to administer an oath in the State of Florida may swear in new attorneys to The Florida Bar remotely by audio-video communication technology from a location within the State of Florida, provided they can positively identify the new attorney.
(5) For purposes of the provisions regarding the administering of oaths, the term “positively identify” means that the notary or other qualified person can both see and hear the witness or new attorney via audio-video communications equipment for purposes of readily identifying the witness or new attorney.
(2) In a law school practice program, the requirement in Rule 11-1.2(b) of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar that an indigent person and the supervising attorney must consent in writing to representation by a supervised law student may be satisfied by the judge receiving the consent verbally under oath.
III. COURT PROCEEDINGS
The following provisions govern the conduct of court proceedings, except as modified by Section X., addressing reversions to a previous phase by a circuit or a county within the circuit.• The circuit has transitioned to Phase 2 or Phase 3 pursuant to Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-32, as amended, and the proceeding is conducted in a manner that is consistent with the circuit’s operational plan.
(3) Additional days equal to the number of days for which grand jury proceedings are suspended shall be restored to the term of the impaneled statewide grand jury or other impaneled grand jury; however, the number of days restored may not exceed the number of days the impaneled grand jury had remaining in its term when the suspension began.
(2) The circuit or a county within the circuit must have transitioned to Phase 2 or Phase 3 pursuant to Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-32, as amended, and the proceeding must be conducted in a manner that is consistent with the circuit’s operational plan.
b. Is a person at higher risk for severe illness due to COVID-19 infection as identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and requests to be excused;
c. Must care for a child or relative whose regular care provider is closed or unavailable for reasons related to COVID-19; or
d. Is receiving leave pursuant to the Families First Coronavirus Response Act.
b. Has suffered a financial or personal loss due to COVID-19 that makes it a hardship to perform jury service.9
criminal arraignments;
hearings on motions to set or modify monetary bail for individuals who are in custody;
juvenile dependency shelter hearings;
juvenile delinquency detention hearings;
hearings on petitions for injunctions relating to safety of an individual;
hearings on petitions for risk protection orders;
hearings on petitions for the appointment of an emergency temporary guardian;
hearings to determine whether an individual should be involuntarily committed under the Baker Act or the Marchman Act; and
hearings on petitions for extraordinary writs as necessary to protect constitutional rights.
(3) It is recognized that certain essential or critical trial court proceedings in some jurisdictions may in extraordinary, limited circumstances be unavoidably delayed due to the exigencies of the ongoing emergency. When this occurs, chief judges are required to take all steps feasible to minimize the delay.
(4) In conducting essential proceedings and proceedings critical to the state of emergency or the public health emergency, circuit and county courts shall employ all methods feasible to minimize risk of COVID-19 exposure to individuals involved in the proceedings or the general public.
(2) Non-jury trials in:
b. Termination of parental rights and juvenile delinquency cases shall be conducted remotely if ordered by the chief judge or the presiding judge or, if not, shall be conducted in person.
b. Remote conduct of the proceeding would be infeasible because the court, the clerk, or other participant in a proceeding lacks the technological resources necessary to conduct the proceeding or, for reasons directly related to the state of emergency or the public health emergency, lacks the staff resources necessary to conduct the proceeding.
IV. SUSPENSION OF TIME PERIODS IN CERTAIN RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
(2) This suspension shall be applied in the manner described in Sullivan v. State, 913 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), and State v. Hernandez, 617 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1993). The suspension of time limits under the speedy trial procedure restores additional days equal to the number stated in the previous orders and this order. Additionally, when the time periods involving the speedy trial procedure in criminal and juvenile court proceedings are no longer suspended in a circuit or county within a circuit, each of the 10-day time periods in Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.191(p)(3) and Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.090(m)(3) shall be increased to 30 days until such time as the circuit or county within a circuit has transitioned to Phase 4.
(2) Be suspended during any period of time in which grand jury proceedings are suspended under Section III.A.(1)b. or X.B. The suspension of the time limits of Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.133(b) and 3.134 restores additional days equal to the number of days of the suspension under Section III.A.(1)b. or X.B.
V. DEFENDANTS ARRESTED ON WARRANT OR CAPIAS FROM ANOTHER FLORIDA JURISDICTION16
To mitigate the health risks associated with the incarceration and transportation of defendants during the pandemic, when a defendant is arrested on a warrant or capias from another Florida jurisdiction, chief judges of the circuit courts remain encouraged to facilitate communication between the circuit or county where the case originated (“home court”) and the circuit or county where the defendant is incarcerated (“holding court”), for the handling of matters on a temporary basis, as follows:For capiases and violation of probation warrants, before setting monetary bond or other conditions of pretrial release, the first appearance judge, in order to make a proper decision regarding monetary bond or other conditions of pretrial release, must rely on relevant information from the following individuals in the county that issued the capias or warrant: the issuing judge, defense counsel if any, and the state attorney.
Action taken by the holding court at first appearance and any pretrial release hearing should be promptly reported to the home court and reflected in the record of the case.
Any provision of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.131 inconsistent with these measures remains suspended.
B. Pleas. Judges remain encouraged to coordinate with prosecutors, attorneys, defendants, and victims in order to utilize section 910.035, Florida Statutes, which allows for pleas of guilty or nolo contendere for persons arrested in counties outside of the county of prosecution, upon the consent of the defendant and the state attorney in the county where the crime was committed.
C. Rights of Parties. In cases that are not handled by a plea or pretrial release such that the defendant will continue to be detained in the jurisdiction of the holding court for an indefinite period of time, chief judges are directed to ensure that the due process rights of the defendant are protected by facilitating the temporary transfer of the case to the holding court, if necessary; by having a judge from the holding court designated by the Chief Justice, or designated by the chief judge if the home and holding court are within the same circuit, as a judge of the home court to handle emergency or other necessary matters in the case; or by other appropriate means.
D. Victims. The constitutional rights of crime victims must also be considered in all cases by the presiding judge.
VI. SPEEDY TRIAL PROCEDURE IN NONCRIMINAL TRAFFIC INFRACTION COURT PROCEEDINGS17
All time periods involving the speedy trial procedure in noncriminal traffic infraction court proceedings remain suspended. The suspension of time limits under the speedy trial procedure restores additional days equal to the number stated in the previous orders and this order.VII. SUSPENSION OF TIME PERIODS IN CERTAIN SMALL CLAIMS RULES
All time periods referenced in Florida Small Claims Rule 7.090(b) that are applicable to the clerk of the court in small claims cases are suspended through October 30, 2020.VIII. FAMILY LAW FORMS18
Except as indicated below, the requirement that Florida Family Law Forms be notarized or signed in the presence of a deputy clerk remains suspended, if the filer includes the following statement before the filer’s signature: Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read this document and the facts stated in it are true. This exception does not apply to Florida Family Law Forms 12.902(f)(1), Marital Settlement Agreement for Dissolution of Marriage with Dependent or Minor Child(ren), 12.902(f)(2), Marital Settlement Agreement for Dissolution of Marriage with Property but No Dependent or Minor Child(ren), 12.902(f)(3), Marital Settlement Agreement for Simplified Dissolution of Marriage, and any other family law form that transfers the ownership of property, which must continue to be notarized or signed in the presence of a deputy clerk prior to filing.IX. VISITATION FOR CHILDREN UNDER THE PROTECTIVE SUPERVISION OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (DCF)19
Requirements for in-person visitation pursuant to circuit court orders entered under chapter 39, Florida Statutes, remain suspended. This order does not affect in-person visitations when all parties and the caregiver agree that the visitation can take place in a manner that does not pose a health threat.In lieu of in-person visitation, visitation shall be conducted through electronic means with video communication as the preferred means, although telephonic contact is permitted if video communication is not feasible.
The suspension of in-person visitation applies to parent-child visitation, sibling visitation, and visitation between children and other family members and non-relatives.
If a party seeks to reinstate in-person visitation while the suspension of inperson visitation requirements remains in effect, such reinstatement shall be determined on a case-by-case basis by the circuit court with jurisdiction over that party’s case. Reinstatement of in-person visitation may be ordered if the court determines that it will not jeopardize the health, safety, and well-being of all children and adults (including caregivers) who will be affected by the in-person visitation.
Nothing in these provisions regarding visitation for children under the protective supervision of the DCF overrides existing circuit administrative orders to the extent that those orders are not in conflict with this order. Circuits may enter additional administrative orders addressing visitation and contact pursuant to chapter 39, Florida Statutes, to the extent that they are not in conflict with this order.
X. REVERSION TO A PREVIOUS PHASE
If a circuit or a county within the circuit reverts to a previous phase, as addressed in Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-32, as amended, the following provisions govern.(2) Were commenced before the reversion may proceed to completion in person if the chief judge determines that completion of the proceeding without delay is required by the interests of justice and determines, under consultation with the county health department or local health expert, that the in-person proceeding can be conducted in a manner that protects the health and safety of all participants.
B. Suspension of Impaneled Non-statewide Grand Jury. If the chief judge determines that the proceedings of an impaneled non-statewide grand jury cannot continue in Phase 1, the chief judge may issue a local administrative order suspending the proceedings for a specified period of time not to exceed 30 days after the circuit or county within the circuit returns to Phase 2. The provisions of Section III.A.(3) apply with respect to the restoration of time to the term of the impaneled non-statewide grand jury during such suspension.
C. Speedy Trial. If a circuit or a county within the circuit reverts from Phase 3 to Phase 1 or Phase 2, all time periods involving the speedy trial procedure in criminal and juvenile court proceedings are suspended until 90 days after the Chief Justice has approved the recertification of a chief judge of a judicial circuit that the circuit or county within the circuit has returned to Phase 3 pursuant to Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-32, as amended. The provisions of Section IV.A.(2) apply except that the suspension of time limits under this section restores additional days equal to the number of days of the suspension under this section.
* * *
Additional orders extending or modifying these measures will be issued as warranted by changing circumstances during the public health emergency.DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on August 12, 2020.
| |
| Chief Justice Jorge Labarga | |
| ATTEST: | |
| |
| John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court |
John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court
Footnotes
2/ In re: COVID-19 Emergency Procedures in the Florida State Courts, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-13 (March 13, 2020); In re: COVID-19 Essential and Critical Trial Court Proceedings, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-15 (March 17, 2020); In re: COVID-19 Emergency Procedures for the Administering of Oaths via Remote Audio-Video Communication Equipment, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-16 (March 18, 2020); In re: COVID-19 Emergency Measures in the Florida State Courts, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-17 (March 24, 2020);In re: COVID-19 Emergency Procedures in Relation to Visitation for Children Under the Protective Supervision of the Department of Children and Families, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-18 (March 27, 2020); and In re: COVID-19 Emergency Procedures for Speedy Trial in Noncriminal Traffic Infraction Court Proceedings, Fla. Admin Order No. AOSC20-19 (March 30, 2020).
3/ This measure initially went into effect at the close of business on March 13, 2020. (AOSC20-13).
4/ This measure initially went into effect on Friday, March 13, 2020. (AOSC20-13).
5/ This measure initially went into effect on March 18, 2020. (AOSC20-16).
6/ This measure initially went into effect on March 18, 2020. (AOSC20-16).
7/ This measure initially went into effect on March 18, 2020. (AOSC20-16).
8/ This measure initially went into effect on March 16, 2020. (AOSC20-13).
9/ Postponements are subject to the six-month statutory maximum specified in section 40.23(2), Florida Statutes. If granting a postponement based on one or both of these reasons would exceed the statutory maximum because of a previous postponement granted to a potential juror, the chief judge or the presiding judge is encouraged to consider whether to grant an excusal based on either reason.
10/ These measures initially went into effect on March 17, 2020. (AOSC20-15).
11/ A measure related to these proceedings initially went into effect on March 17, 2020. (AOSC20-15).
12/ This measure initially went into effect on March 17, 2020. (AOSC20-15).
13/ This measure initially went into effect at the close of business on March 13, 2020. (AOSC20-13 and AOSC20-17).
14/ This measure initially went into effect at the close of business on March 13, 2020. (AOSC20-17).
15/ This measure initially went into effect on March 24, 2020. (AOSC20- 17).
16/ These measures initially took effect on March 24, 2020. (AOSC20-17).
17/ This measure initially took effect on March 13, 2020. (AOSC20-19).
18/ This measure initially took effect on March 24, 2020. (AOSC20-17).
19/ These measures initially took effect on March 27, 2020. (AOSC20-18).
AOSC 20-23 (7)
AOSC 20-23 (7) | IN RE: COMPREHENSIVE COVID-19 EMERGENCY MEASURES FOR THE FLORIDA STATE COURTS
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER1
As a result of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the State Surgeon General and State Health Officer on March 1, 2020, declared that a public health emergency exists in Florida, and the Governor on March 9, 2020, declared a state of emergency for the entire state. The Florida state courts have taken measures to mitigate the effects of this public health emergency upon the judicial branch and its participants. To that end, I have issued several administrative orders implementing temporary measures essential to the administration of justice during the COVID-19 pandemic.2 The overarching intent of those orders has been to mitigate the impact of COVID-19, while keeping the courts operating to the fullest extent consistent with public safety.It is the intent of the judicial branch to transition to optimal operations in a manner that protects the public’s health and safety during each of the following anticipated phases of the pandemic:
b) Phase 2 – limited in-person contact is authorized for certain purposes and/or requires use of protective measures;
c) Phase 3 – in-person contact is more broadly authorized and protective measures are relaxed; and
d) Phase 4 – COVID-19 no longer presents a significant risk to public health and safety.
Under the administrative authority conferred upon me by article V, section 2(b) of the Florida Constitution, by Florida Rules of Judicial Administration 2.205(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 2.205(a)(2)(B)(v), and by Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 1-12.1(j),
IT IS ORDERED that:
I. GUIDING PRINCIPLES
B. To maintain judicial workflow to the maximum extent feasible, chief judges are directed to take all necessary steps to facilitate the remote conduct of proceedings with the use of technology. For purposes of this administrative order, “remote conduct” or “conducted remotely” means the conduct, in part or in whole, of a court proceeding using telephonic or other electronic means.
C. Nothing in this order is intended to limit a chief judge’s authority to conduct court business or to approve additional court proceedings or events that are required in the interest of justice, if doing so is consistent with this administrative order and protecting the health of the participants and the public.
D. Judges and court personnel who can effectively conduct court and judicial branch business from a remote location shall do so. Participants who have the capability of participating by electronic means in remote court proceedings shall do so.
II. USE OF TECHNOLOGY
B. The chief judge of each district court of appeal and each judicial circuit remains authorized to establish procedures for the use, to the maximum extent feasible, of communication equipment for the remote conduct of proceedings, as are necessary in their respective district or circuit due to the public health emergency.4
C. Administering of Oaths
(2) If a witness is not located within the State of Florida, a witness may consent to being put on oath via audio-video communication technology by a person qualified to administer an oath in the State of Florida.6
(3) All rules of procedure, court orders, and opinions applicable to remote testimony, depositions, and other legal testimony, including the attestation of family law forms, that can be read to limit or prohibit the use of audio-video communications equipment to administer oaths remotely or to witness the attestation of family law forms shall remain suspended.7
(4) Notaries and other persons qualified to administer an oath in the State of Florida may swear in new attorneys to The Florida Bar remotely by audio-video communication technology from a location within the State of Florida, provided they can positively identify the new attorney.
(5) For purposes of the provisions regarding the administering of oaths, the term “positively identify” means that the notary or other qualified person can both see and hear the witness or new attorney via audio-video communications equipment for purposes of readily identifying the witness or new attorney.
(2) In a law school practice program, the requirement in Rule 11-1.2(b) of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar that an indigent person and the supervising attorney must consent in writing to representation by a supervised law student may be satisfied by the judge receiving the consent verbally under oath.
III. COURT PROCEEDINGS
The following provisions govern the conduct of court proceedings, except as modified by Section X., addressing reversions to a previous phase by a circuit or a county within the circuit.• The circuit has transitioned to Phase 2 or Phase 3 pursuant to Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-32, as amended, and the proceeding is conducted in a manner that is consistent with the circuit’s operational plan.
(3) Additional days equal to the number of days for which grand jury proceedings are suspended shall be restored to the term of the impaneled statewide grand jury or other impaneled grand jury; however, the number of days restored may not exceed the number of days the impaneled grand jury had remaining in its term when the suspension began.
(2) The circuit or a county within the circuit must have transitioned to Phase 2 or Phase 3 pursuant to Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-32, as amended, and the proceeding must be conducted in a manner that is consistent with the circuit’s operational plan.
b. Is a person at higher risk for severe illness due to COVID-19 infection as identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and requests to be excused;
c. Must care for a child or relative whose regular care provider is closed or unavailable for reasons related to COVID-19; or
d. Is receiving leave pursuant to the Families First Coronavirus Response Act.
b. Has suffered a financial or personal loss due to COVID-19 that makes it a hardship to perform jury service.9
criminal arraignments;
hearings on motions to set or modify monetary bail for individuals who are in custody;
juvenile dependency shelter hearings;
juvenile delinquency detention hearings;
hearings on petitions for injunctions relating to safety of an individual;
hearings on petitions for risk protection orders;
hearings on petitions for the appointment of an emergency temporary guardian;
hearings to determine whether an individual should be involuntarily committed under the Baker Act or the Marchman Act; and
hearings on petitions for extraordinary writs as necessary to protect constitutional rights.
(3) It is recognized that certain essential or critical trial court proceedings in some jurisdictions may in extraordinary, limited circumstances be unavoidably delayed due to the exigencies of the ongoing emergency. When this occurs, chief judges are required to take all steps feasible to minimize the delay.
(4) In conducting essential proceedings and proceedings critical to the state of emergency or the public health emergency, circuit and county courts shall employ all methods feasible to minimize risk of COVID-19 exposure to individuals involved in the proceedings or the general public.
(2) Non-jury trials in:
b. Termination of parental rights and juvenile delinquency cases shall be conducted remotely if ordered by the chief judge or the presiding judge or, if not, shall be conducted in person.
b. Remote conduct of the proceeding would be infeasible because the court, the clerk, or other participant in a proceeding lacks the technological resources necessary to conduct the proceeding or, for reasons directly related to the state of emergency or the public health emergency, lacks the staff resources necessary to conduct the proceeding.
IV. SUSPENSION OF TIME PERIODS IN CERTAIN RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
(2) This suspension shall be applied in the manner described in Sullivan v. State, 913 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), and State v. Hernandez, 617 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1993). The suspension of time limits under the speedy trial procedure restores additional days equal to the number stated in the previous orders and this order. Additionally, when the time periods involving the speedy trial procedure in criminal and juvenile court proceedings are no longer suspended in a circuit or county within a circuit, each of the 10-day time periods in Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.191(p)(3) and Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.090(m)(3) shall be increased to 30 days until such time as the circuit or county within a circuit has transitioned to Phase 4.
(2) Be suspended during any period of time in which grand jury proceedings are suspended under Section III.A.(1)b. or X.B. The suspension of the time limits of Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.133(b) and 3.134 restores additional days equal to the number of days of the suspension under Section III.A.(1)b. or X.B.
V. DEFENDANTS ARRESTED ON WARRANT OR CAPIAS FROM ANOTHER FLORIDA JURISDICTION16
To mitigate the health risks associated with the incarceration and transportation of defendants during the pandemic, when a defendant is arrested on a warrant or capias from another Florida jurisdiction, chief judges of the circuit courts remain encouraged to facilitate communication between the circuit or county where the case originated (“home court”) and the circuit or county where the defendant is incarcerated (“holding court”), for the handling of matters on a temporary basis, as follows:For capiases and violation of probation warrants, before setting monetary bond or other conditions of pretrial release, the first appearance judge, in order to make a proper decision regarding monetary bond or other conditions of pretrial release, must rely on relevant information from the following individuals in the county that issued the capias or warrant: the issuing judge, defense counsel if any, and the state attorney.
Action taken by the holding court at first appearance and any pretrial release hearing should be promptly reported to the home court and reflected in the record of the case.
Any provision of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.131 inconsistent with these measures remains suspended.
B. Pleas. Judges remain encouraged to coordinate with prosecutors, attorneys, defendants, and victims in order to utilize section 910.035, Florida Statutes, which allows for pleas of guilty or nolo contendere for persons arrested in counties outside of the county of prosecution, upon the consent of the defendant and the state attorney in the county where the crime was committed.
C. Rights of Parties. In cases that are not handled by a plea or pretrial release such that the defendant will continue to be detained in the jurisdiction of the holding court for an indefinite period of time, chief judges are directed to ensure that the due process rights of the defendant are protected by facilitating the temporary transfer of the case to the holding court, if necessary; by having a judge from the holding court designated by the Chief Justice, or designated by the chief judge if the home and holding court are within the same circuit, as a judge of the home court to handle emergency or other necessary matters in the case; or by other appropriate means.
D. Victims. The constitutional rights of crime victims must also be considered in all cases by the presiding judge.
VI. SPEEDY TRIAL PROCEDURE IN NONCRIMINAL TRAFFIC INFRACTION COURT PROCEEDINGS17
All time periods involving the speedy trial procedure in noncriminal traffic infraction court proceedings remain suspended. The suspension of time limits under the speedy trial procedure restores additional days equal to the number stated in the previous orders and this order.VII. SUSPENSION OF TIME PERIODS IN CERTAIN SMALL CLAIMS RULES
All time periods referenced in Florida Small Claims Rule 7.090(b) that are applicable to the clerk of the court in small claims cases are suspended through October 30, 2020.VIII. FAMILY LAW FORMS18
Except as indicated below, the requirement that Florida Family Law Forms be notarized or signed in the presence of a deputy clerk remains suspended, if the filer includes the following statement before the filer’s signature:Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read this document and the facts stated in it are true.This exception does not apply to Florida Family Law Forms 12.902(f)(1), Marital Settlement Agreement for Dissolution of Marriage with Dependent or Minor Child(ren), 12.902(f)(2), Marital Settlement Agreement for Dissolution of Marriage with Property but No Dependent or Minor Child(ren), 12.902(f)(3), Marital Settlement Agreement for Simplified Dissolution of Marriage, and any other family law form that transfers the ownership of property, which must continue to be notarized or signed in the presence of a deputy clerk prior to filing.
IX. VISITATION FOR CHILDREN UNDER THE PROTECTIVE SUPERVISION OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (DCF)19
Requirements for in-person visitation pursuant to circuit court orders entered under chapter 39, Florida Statutes, remain suspended. This order does not affect in-person visitations when all parties and the caregiver agree that the visitation can take place in a manner that does not pose a health threat.In lieu of in-person visitation, visitation shall be conducted through electronic means with video communication as the preferred means, although telephonic contact is permitted if video communication is not feasible.
The suspension of in-person visitation applies to parent-child visitation, sibling visitation, and visitation between children and other family members and non-relatives.
If a party seeks to reinstate in-person visitation while the suspension of inperson visitation requirements remains in effect, such reinstatement shall be determined on a case-by-case basis by the circuit court with jurisdiction over that party’s case. Reinstatement of in-person visitation may be ordered if the court determines that it will not jeopardize the health, safety, and well-being of all 19. These measures initially took effect on March 27, 2020. (AOSC20-18). children and adults (including caregivers) who will be affected by the in-person visitation.
Nothing in these provisions regarding visitation for children under the protective supervision of the DCF overrides existing circuit administrative orders to the extent that those orders are not in conflict with this order. Circuits may enter additional administrative orders addressing visitation and contact pursuant to chapter 39, Florida Statutes, to the extent that they are not in conflict with this order.
X. REVERSION TO A PREVIOUS PHASE
If a circuit or a county within the circuit reverts to a previous phase, as addressed in Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-32, as amended, the following provisions govern.(2) Were commenced before the reversion may proceed to completion in person if the chief judge determines that completion of the proceeding without delay is required by the interests of justice and determines, under consultation with the county health department or local health expert, that the in-person proceeding can be conducted in a manner that protects the health and safety of all participants. The requirements of the double jeopardy clause must be considered in criminal proceedings.
C. Speedy Trial. If a circuit or a county within the circuit reverts from Phase 3 to Phase 1 or Phase 2, all time periods involving the speedy trial procedure in criminal and juvenile court proceedings are suspended until 90 days after the Chief Justice has approved the recertification of a chief judge of a judicial circuit that the circuit or county within the circuit has returned to Phase 3 pursuant to Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-32, as amended. The provisions of Section IV.A.(2) apply except that the suspension of time limits under this section restores additional days equal to the number of days of the suspension under this section.
* * *
Additional orders extending or modifying these measures will be issued as warranted by changing circumstances during the public health emergency.DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on October 2, 2020.
| |
| Chief Justice Jorge Labarga | |
| ATTEST: | |
| |
| John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court |
John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court
Footnotes
2/ In re: COVID-19 Emergency Procedures in the Florida State Courts, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-13 (March 13, 2020); In re: COVID-19 Essential and Critical Trial Court Proceedings, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-15 (March 17, 2020); In re: COVID-19 Emergency Procedures for the Administering of Oaths via, Remote Audio-Video Communication Equipment, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-16 (March 18, 2020); In re: COVID-19 Emergency Measures in the Florida State Courts, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-17 (March 24, 2020);In re: COVID-19 Emergency Procedures in Relation to Visitation for Children Under the Protective Supervision of the Department of Children and Families, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-18 (March 27, 2020); and In re: COVID-19 Emergency Procedures for Speedy Trial in Noncriminal Traffic Infraction Court Proceedings, Fla. Admin Order No. AOSC20-19 (March 30, 2020).
3/ This measure initially went into effect at the close of business on March 13, 2020. (AOSC20-13).
4/ This measure initially went into effect on Friday, March 13, 2020. (AOSC20-13).
5/ This measure initially went into effect on March 18, 2020. (AOSC20-16).
6/ This measure initially went into effect on March 18, 2020. (AOSC20-16).
7/ This measure initially went into effect on March 18, 2020. (AOSC20-16).
8/ This measure initially went into effect on March 16, 2020. (AOSC20-13).
9/ Postponements are subject to the six-month statutory maximum specified in section 40.23(2), Florida Statutes. If granting a postponement based on one or both of these reasons would exceed the statutory maximum because of a previous postponement granted to a potential juror, the chief judge or the presiding judge is encouraged to consider whether to grant an excusal based on either reason.
10/ These measures initially went into effect on March 17, 2020. (AOSC20-15).
11/ A measure related to these proceedings initially went into effect on March 17, 2020. (AOSC20-15).
12/ This measure initially went into effect on March 17, 2020. (AOSC20-15).
13/ This measure initially went into effect at the close of business on March 13, 2020. (AOSC20-13 and AOSC20-17).
14/ This measure initially went into effect at the close of business on March 13, 2020. (AOSC20-17).
15/ This measure initially went into effect on March 24, 2020. (AOSC20-17).
16/ These measures initially took effect on March 24, 2020. (AOSC20-17).
17/ This measure initially took effect on March 13, 2020. (AOSC20-19).
18/ This measure initially took effect on March 24, 2020. (AOSC20-17).
AOSC 20-23 (8)
AOSC 20-23 (8) | IN RE: COMPREHENSIVE COVID-19 EMERGENCY MEASURES FOR FLORIDA TRIAL COURTS
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER1
As a result of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the State Surgeon General and State Health Officer on March 1, 2020, declared that a public health emergency exists in Florida, and the Governor on March 9, 2020, declared a state of emergency for the entire state. The Florida state courts have taken measures to mitigate the effects of this public health emergency upon the judicial branch and its participants. To that end, I have issued several administrative orders implementing temporary measures essential to the administration of justice during the COVID-19 pandemic.2 The overarching intent of those orders has been to mitigate the impact of COVID-19, while keeping the courts operating to the fullest extent consistent with public safety.It is the intent of the judicial branch to transition to optimal operations in a manner that protects the public’s health and safety during each of the following anticipated phases of the pandemic:
b) Phase 2 – in-person contact is authorized for certain purposes but requires use of protective measures;
c) Phase 3 – an effective vaccine is adequately available and in use and inperson contact is more broadly authorized; and
d) Phase 4 – COVID-19 no longer presents a significant risk to public health and safety.
Under the administrative authority conferred upon me by article V, section 2(b) of the Florida Constitution, by Florida Rules of Judicial Administration 2.205(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 2.205(a)(2)(B)(v), and by Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 1-12.1(j),
IT IS ORDERED that:
I. GUIDING PRINCIPLES
B. To maintain judicial workflow to the maximum extent feasible, chief judges shall take all necessary steps to support the remote conduct of proceedings with the use of technology, in accordance with this administrative order and other applicable standards and guidance as may be adopted by the Chief Justice or supreme court. For purposes of this administrative order, “remote conduct” or “conducted remotely” means the conduct, in part or in whole, of a court proceeding using telephonic or other electronic means.
C. Nothing in this order is intended to limit a chief judge’s authority to conduct court business or to approve additional court proceedings or events that are required in the interest of justice, if doing so is consistent with this administrative order and protecting the health of the participants and the public.
D. Judges and court personnel who can effectively conduct court and judicial branch business from a remote location shall do so. Participants who have the capability of participating by electronic means in remote court proceedings shall do so.
II. USE OF TECHNOLOGY
B. The chief judge of each judicial circuit remains authorized to establish procedures for the use, to the maximum extent feasible, of communication equipment for the remote conduct of proceedings, as are necessary in their respective circuit due to the public health emergency.4
C. Administering of Oaths
(2) If a witness is not located within the State of Florida, a witness may consent to being put on oath via audio-video communication technology by a person qualified to administer an oath in the State of Florida.6
(3) All rules of procedure, court orders, and opinions applicable to remote testimony, depositions, and other legal testimony, including the attestation of family law forms, that can be read to limit or prohibit the use of audio-video communications equipment to administer oaths remotely or to witness the attestation of family law forms shall remain suspended.7
(4) Notaries and other persons qualified to administer an oath in the State of Florida may swear in new attorneys to The Florida Bar remotely by audio-video communication technology from a location within the State of Florida, provided they can positively identify the new attorney.
(5) For purposes of the provisions regarding the administering of oaths, the term “positively identify” means that the notary or other qualified person can both see and hear the witness or new attorney via audio-video communications equipment for purposes of readily identifying the witness or new attorney.
(2) In a law school practice program, the requirement in Rule 11-1.2(b) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar that an indigent person and the supervising attorney must consent in writing to representation by a supervised law student may be satisfied by the judge receiving the consent verbally under oath.
III. TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS
The following provisions govern the conduct of trial court proceedings during Phases 1 through 3, except as modified by Section IX., addressing reversions to a previous phase by a circuit or a county within the circuit.• The circuit is operating in Phase 2 or Phase 3 pursuant to Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-32, as amended, and the proceeding is conducted in a manner that is consistent with the circuit’s operational plan.
(3) Additional days equal to the number of days for which grand jury proceedings are suspended shall be restored to the term of the impaneled statewide grand jury or other impaneled grand jury; however, the number of days restored may not exceed the number of days the impaneled grand jury had remaining in its term when the suspension began.
(2) The circuit or a county within the circuit must be operating in Phase 2 or Phase 3 pursuant to Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-32, as amended, and the proceeding must be conducted in a manner that is consistent with the circuit’s operational plan.
(2) Shall create a process whereby the:
ii. Is a person at higher risk for severe illness due to COVID-19 infection as identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and requests to be excused;
iii. Must care for a child or relative whose regular care provider is closed or unavailable for reasons related to COVID-19; or
iv. Is receiving leave pursuant to the Families First Coronavirus Response Act.
ii. Has suffered a financial or personal loss due to COVID-19 that makes it a hardship to perform jury service.9, 10
criminal arraignments;
hearings on motions to set or modify monetary bail for individuals who are in custody;
juvenile dependency shelter hearings;
juvenile delinquency detention hearings;
hearings on petitions for injunctions relating to safety of an individual;
hearings on petitions for risk protection orders;
hearings on petitions for the appointment of an emergency temporary guardian;
hearings to determine whether an individual should be involuntarily committed under the Baker Act or the Marchman Act; and
hearings on petitions for extraordinary writs as necessary to protect constitutional rights.
(3) In Phase 1 and Phase 2, essential and critical trial court proceedings shall be conducted remotely, unless the chief judge or presiding judge, in consultation with the chief judge, determines that it is necessary to conduct the proceeding in person. If the circuit or county within a circuit is operating in Phase 1, in-person conduct of a proceeding may occur if the chief judge, in consultation with the county health department or local health expert, determines that the inperson proceeding can be conducted in a manner that protects the health and safety of all participants. If the circuit or county within a circuit is operating in Phase 2, in-person conduct of a proceeding must be consistent with the circuit’s operational plan.
(4) It is recognized that certain essential or critical trial court proceedings in some jurisdictions may in extraordinary, limited circumstances be unavoidably delayed due to the exigencies of the ongoing emergency. When this occurs, chief judges are required to take all steps feasible to minimize the delay.
(2) Non-jury trials in:
b. Termination of parental rights and juvenile delinquency cases shall be conducted remotely if ordered by the chief judge or the presiding judge or, if not, shall be conducted in person.
b. Would be infeasible because the court, the clerk, or other participant in a proceeding lacks the technological resources necessary to conduct the proceeding or, for reasons directly related to the state of emergency or the public health emergency, lacks the staff resources necessary to conduct the proceeding.
(2) Circuit and county criminal trials with an in-custody defendant.
(3) Circuit trials for juveniles being tried as an adult.
(4) Juvenile delinquency trials.
(5) Circuit and county criminal trials with an out-of-custody defendant.
(6) Termination of parental rights trials.
(7) Circuit civil jury trials.
(8) County civil jury trials.
(9) All other trial court proceedings.
(2) Are encouraged, where consistent with public health and safety and the circuit’s operational plan, to:
b. Reassign judges and court staff to proceedings having the highest priority;
c. Implement scheduling practices that promote the conduct of as many jury trials as feasible; and
d. Communicate to the local Bar that lawyers must strictly comply with Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.545(a), which requires lawyers to conclude litigation as soon as it is reasonably and justly possible to do so, and that the pandemic alone is not a basis for a lawyer’s failure to prepare a case for trial or otherwise actively manage a case.
IV. SUSPENSION OF TIME PERIODS IN CERTAIN RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
(2) When the suspension ends and the time periods resume in a circuit or county within a circuit:
b. Each of the 10-day time periods in Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.191(p)(3) and Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.090(m)(3) shall be increased to 30 days until such time as the circuit or county within a circuit has transitioned to Phase 4.
(2) Be suspended during any period of time in which grand jury proceedings are suspended under Section III.A.(1)b. or IX.B. When the suspension ends and the time periods resume, any time that accrued under the rules for a person before the suspension began on March 13, 2020, shall be subtracted from the time periods provided by the rules.
V. DEFENDANTS ARRESTED ON WARRANT OR CAPIAS FROM ANOTHER FLORIDA JURISDICTION17
To mitigate the health risks associated with the incarceration and transportation of defendants during the pandemic, when a defendant is arrested on a warrant or capias from another Florida jurisdiction, chief judges of the circuit courts remain encouraged to facilitate communication between the circuit or county where the case originated (“home court”) and the circuit or county where the defendant is incarcerated (“holding court”), for the handling of matters on a temporary basis, as follows:For capiases and violation of probation warrants, before setting monetary bond or other conditions of pretrial release, the first appearance judge, in order to make a proper decision regarding monetary bond or other conditions of pretrial release, must rely on relevant information from the following individuals in the county that issued the capias or warrant: the issuing judge, defense counsel if any, and the state attorney.
Action taken by the holding court at first appearance and any pretrial release hearing should be promptly reported to the home court and reflected in the record of the case.
Any provision of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.131 inconsistent with these measures remains suspended.
B. Pleas. Judges remain encouraged to coordinate with prosecutors, attorneys, defendants, and victims in order to utilize section 910.035, Florida Statutes, which allows for pleas of guilty or nolo contendere for persons arrested in counties outside of the county of prosecution, upon the consent of the defendant and the state attorney in the county where the crime was committed.
C. Rights of Parties. In cases that are not handled by a plea or pretrial release such that the defendant will continue to be detained in the jurisdiction of the holding court for an indefinite period of time, chief judges are directed to ensure that the due process rights of the defendant are protected by facilitating the temporary transfer of the case to the holding court, if necessary; by having a judge from the holding court designated by the Chief Justice, or designated by the chief judge if the home and holding court are within the same circuit, as a judge of the home court to handle emergency or other necessary matters in the case; or by other appropriate means.
D. Victims. The constitutional rights of crime victims must also be considered in all cases by the presiding judge.
VI. SPEEDY TRIAL PROCEDURE IN NONCRIMINAL TRAFFIC INFRACTION COURT PROCEEDINGS18
The time period involving the speedy trial procedure in noncriminal traffic infraction court proceedings shall remain suspended. When the suspension ends and the time period resumes, any time that accrued under the procedure for a person before the suspension began on March 13, 2020, shall be subtracted from the time period provided by the procedure.VII. FAMILY LAW FORMS19
Except as indicated below, the requirement that Florida Family Law Forms be notarized or signed in the presence of a deputy clerk remains suspended, if the filer includes the following statement before the filer’s signature:Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read this document and the facts stated in it are true.This exception does not apply to Florida Family Law Forms 12.902(f)(1), Marital Settlement Agreement for Dissolution of Marriage with Dependent or Minor Child(ren), 12.902(f)(2), Marital Settlement Agreement for Dissolution of Marriage with Property but No Dependent or Minor Child(ren), 12.902(f)(3), Marital Settlement Agreement for Simplified Dissolution of Marriage, and any other family law form that transfers the ownership of property, which must continue to be notarized or signed in the presence of a deputy clerk prior to filing.
VIII. VISITATION FOR CHILDREN UNDER THE PROTECTIVE SUPERVISION OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (DCF)20
Requirements for in-person visitation pursuant to circuit court orders entered under chapter 39, Florida Statutes, remain suspended. This order does not affect in-person visitations when all parties and the caregiver agree that the visitation can take place in a manner that does not pose a health threat.In lieu of in-person visitation, visitation shall be conducted through electronic means with video communication as the preferred means, although telephonic contact is permitted if video communication is not feasible. The suspension of in-person visitation applies to parent-child visitation, sibling visitation, and visitation between children and other family members and non-relatives.
If a party seeks to reinstate in-person visitation while the suspension of inperson visitation requirements remains in effect, such reinstatement shall be determined on a case-by-case basis by the circuit court with jurisdiction over that party’s case. Reinstatement of in-person visitation may be ordered if the court determines that it will not jeopardize the health, safety, and well-being of all children and adults (including caregivers) who will be affected by the in-person visitation.
Nothing in these provisions regarding visitation for children under the protective supervision of the DCF overrides existing circuit administrative orders to the extent that those orders are not in conflict with this order. Circuits may enter additional administrative orders addressing visitation and contact pursuant to chapter 39, Florida Statutes, to the extent that they are not in conflict with this order.
IX. REVERSION TO A PREVIOUS PHASE
If a circuit or a county within the circuit reverts to a previous phase, as addressed in Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-32, as amended, the following provisions govern.(2) Were commenced before the reversion may proceed to completion in person if the chief judge determines that completion of the proceeding without delay is required by the interests of justice and determines, in consultation with the county health department or local health expert, that the in-person proceeding can be conducted in a manner that protects the health and safety of all participants. The requirements of the double jeopardy clause must be considered in criminal proceedings.
C. Speedy Trial. If a circuit or a county within the circuit reverts from Phase 3 to Phase 1 or Phase 2, all time periods involving the speedy trial procedure in criminal and juvenile court proceedings are suspended until 90 days after the Chief Justice has approved the recertification of a chief judge of a judicial circuit that the circuit or county within the circuit has returned to Phase 3 pursuant to Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-32, as amended. When the suspension ends and the time periods resume:
(2) Each of the 10-day time periods in Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.191(p)(3) and Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.090(m)(3) shall be increased to 30 days until such time as the circuit or county within a circuit has transitioned to Phase 4.
* * *
Additional orders extending or modifying these measures will be issued as warranted by changing circumstances during the public health emergency.DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on November 23, 2020.
| |
| Chief Justice Jorge Labarga | |
| ATTEST: | |
| |
| John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court |
John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court
Footnotes
2/ In re: COVID-19 Emergency Procedures in the Florida State Courts, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-13 (March 13, 2020); In re: COVID-19 Essential and Critical Trial Court Proceedings, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-15 (March 17, 2020); In re: COVID-19 Emergency Procedures for the Administering of Oaths via Remote Audio-Video Communication Equipment, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-16 (March 18, 2020); In re: COVID-19 Emergency Measures in the Florida State Courts, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-17 (March 24, 2020);In re: COVID-19 Emergency Procedures in Relation to Visitation for Children Under the Protective Supervision of the Department of Children and Families, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-18 (March 27, 2020); and In re: COVID-19 Emergency Procedures for Speedy Trial in Noncriminal Traffic Infraction Court Proceedings, Fla. Admin Order No. AOSC20-19 (March 30, 2020).
3/ This measure initially went into effect at the close of business on March 13, 2020. (AOSC20-13).
4/ This measure initially went into effect on Friday, March 13, 2020. (AOSC20-13).
5/ This measure initially went into effect on March 18, 2020. (AOSC20-16).
6/ This measure initially went into effect on March 18, 2020. (AOSC20-16).
7/ This measure initially went into effect on March 18, 2020. (AOSC20-16).
8/ This measure initially went into effect on March 16, 2020. (AOSC20-13).
9/ Postponements are subject to the six-month statutory maximum specified in section 40.23(2), Florida Statutes. If granting a postponement based on one or both of these reasons would exceed the statutory maximum because of a previous postponement granted to a potential juror, the chief judge or the presiding judge is encouraged to consider whether to grant an excusal based on either reason.
10/ For clarification purposes, the statutory provisions authorizing the reasons listed for excusals and postponements, which are necessitated by the pandemic, have been cited in Section III.C.(2). This clarification is effective as of June 16, 2020, nunc pro tunc.
11/ These measures initially went into effect on March 17, 2020. (AOSC20-15).
12/ A measure related to these proceedings initially went into effect on March 17, 2020. (AOSC20-15).
13/ This measure initially went into effect on March 17, 2020. (AOSC20-15).
14/ This measure initially went into effect at the close of business on March 13, 2020. (AOSC20-13 and AOSC20-17).
15/ This measure initially went into effect at the close of business on March 13, 2020. (AOSC20-17).
16/ This measure initially went into effect on March 24, 2020. (AOSC20-17).
17/ These measures initially took effect on March 24, 2020. (AOSC20-17).
18/ This measure initially took effect on March 13, 2020. (AOSC20-19).
19/ This measure initially took effect on March 24, 2020. (AOSC20-17).
20/ These measures initially took effect on March 27, 2020. (AOSC20-18).
AOSC 20-23 (9)
AOSC 20-23 (9) | IN RE: COMPREHENSIVE COVID-19 EMERGENCY MEASURES FOR FLORIDA TRIAL COURTS
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER1
As a result of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the State Surgeon General and State Health Officer on March 1, 2020, declared that a public health emergency exists in Florida, and the Governor on March 9, 2020, declared a state of emergency for the entire state. The Florida state courts have taken measures to mitigate the effects of this public health emergency upon the judicial branch and its participants. To that end, I have issued several administrative orders implementing temporary measures essential to the administration of justice during the COVID-19 pandemic.2 The overarching intent of those orders has been to mitigate the impact of COVID-19, while keeping the courts operating to the fullest extent consistent with public safety.It is the intent of the judicial branch to transition to optimal operations in a manner that protects the public’s health and safety during each of the following anticipated phases of the pandemic:
b) Phase 2 – in-person contact is authorized for certain purposes but requires use of protective measures;
c) Phase 3 – an effective vaccine is adequately available and in use and inperson contact is more broadly authorized; and
d) Phase 4 – COVID-19 no longer presents a significant risk to public health and safety.
Under the administrative authority conferred upon me by article V, section 2(b) of the Florida Constitution, by Florida Rules of Judicial Administration 2.205(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 2.205(a)(2)(B)(v), and by Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 1-12.1(j),
IT IS ORDERED that:
I. GUIDING PRINCIPLES
B. To maintain judicial workflow to the maximum extent feasible, chief judges shall take all necessary steps to support the remote conduct of proceedings with the use of technology, in accordance with this administrative order and other applicable standards and guidance as may be adopted by the Chief Justice or supreme court. For purposes of this administrative order, “remote conduct,” “remotely conduct,” or “conducted remotely” means the conduct, in part or in whole, of a court proceeding using telephonic or other electronic means.
C. Nothing in this order is intended to limit a chief judge’s authority to conduct court business or to approve additional court proceedings or events that are required in the interest of justice, if doing so is consistent with this administrative order and protecting the health of the participants and the public.
D. Judges and court personnel who can effectively conduct court and judicial branch business from a remote location shall do so. Participants who have the capability of participating by electronic means in remote court proceedings shall do so.
II. USE OF TECHNOLOGY
B. The chief judge of each judicial circuit remains authorized to establish procedures for the use, to the maximum extent feasible, of communication equipment for the remote conduct of proceedings, as are necessary in their respective circuit due to the public health emergency.4
C. Administering of Oaths
(2) If a witness is not located within the State of Florida, a witness may consent to being put on oath via audio-video communication technology by a person qualified to administer an oath in the State of Florida.6
(3) All rules of procedure, court orders, and opinions applicable to remote testimony, depositions, and other legal testimony, including the attestation of family law forms, that can be read to limit or prohibit the use of audio-video communications equipment to administer oaths remotely or to witness the attestation of family law forms shall remain suspended.7
(4) Notaries and other persons qualified to administer an oath in the State of Florida may swear in new attorneys to The Florida Bar remotely by audio-video communication technology from a location within the State of Florida, provided they can positively identify the new attorney.
(5) For purposes of the provisions regarding the administering of oaths, the term “positively identify” means that the notary or other qualified person can both see and hear the witness or new attorney via audio-video communications equipment for purposes of readily identifying the witness or new attorney.
(2) In a law school practice program, the requirement in Rule 11-1.2(b) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar that an indigent person and the supervising attorney must consent in writing to representation by a supervised law student may be satisfied by the judge receiving the consent verbally under oath.
III. TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS
The following provisions govern the conduct of trial court proceedings during Phases 1 through 3, except as modified by Section IX., addressing reversions to a previous phase by a circuit or a county within the circuit.ii. The circuit is operating in Phase 2 or Phase 3 pursuant to Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-32, as amended, and the proceeding is conducted in a manner that is consistent with the circuit’s operational plan.
(3) Additional days equal to the number of days for which grand jury proceedings are suspended shall be restored to the term of the impaneled statewide grand jury or other impaneled grand jury; however, the number of days restored may not exceed the number of days the impaneled grand jury had remaining in its term when the suspension began.
b. Criminal jury trials if:
ii. Counsel for the defendant, if the defendant is represented, indicates orally on the record that they have discussed the potential advantages and disadvantages of remote conduct of the trial with the defendant and have concluded that the defendant has knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently agreed to the remote conduct of the trial; and
iii. The prosecutor indicates the State’s and, if applicable, the victim’s positions orally on the record regarding remote conduct of the trial for purposes of consideration by the presiding judge in determining whether to remotely conduct the trial.
(3) The cases selected for a remote jury trial must be:
b. Conducted pursuant to the requirements specified in the report titled Requirements and Evaluation Criteria – Remote Civil and Criminal Jury Trials and other applicable standards and guidance as may be adopted by the Chief Justice or supreme court.
(5) To conduct any portion of a remote jury trial in person:
b. The circuit or a county within the circuit must be operating in Phase 2 or Phase 3 pursuant to Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-32, as amended, and the proceeding must be conducted in a manner that is consistent with the circuit’s operational plan.
(2) Shall create a process whereby the:
ii. Is a person at higher risk for severe illness due to COVID-19 infection as identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and requests to be excused;
iii. Must care for a child or relative whose regular care provider is closed or unavailable for reasons related to COVID-19; or
iv. Is receiving leave pursuant to the Families First Coronavirus Response Act.
ii. Has suffered a financial or personal loss due to COVID-19 that makes it a hardship to perform jury service.9, 10
criminal arraignments;
hearings on motions to set or modify monetary bail for individuals who are in custody;
juvenile dependency shelter hearings;
juvenile delinquency detention hearings;
hearings on petitions for injunctions relating to safety of an individual;
hearings on petitions for risk protection orders;
hearings on petitions for the appointment of an emergency temporary guardian;
hearings to determine whether an individual should be involuntarily committed under the Baker Act or the Marchman Act; and
hearings on petitions for extraordinary writs as necessary to protect constitutional rights.
(3) In Phase 1 and Phase 2, essential and critical trial court proceedings shall be conducted remotely, unless the chief judge or presiding judge, in consultation with the chief judge, determines that it is necessary to conduct the proceeding in person. If the circuit or county within a circuit is operating in Phase 1, in-person conduct of a proceeding may occur if the chief judge, in consultation with the county health department or local health expert, determines that the inperson proceeding can be conducted in a manner that protects the health and safety of all participants. If the circuit or county within a circuit is operating in Phase 2, in-person conduct of a proceeding must be consistent with the circuit’s operational plan.
(4) It is recognized that certain essential or critical trial court proceedings in some jurisdictions may in extraordinary, limited circumstances be unavoidably delayed due to the exigencies of the ongoing emergency. When this occurs, chief judges are required to take all steps feasible to minimize the delay.
(2) Non-jury trials in:
b. Termination of parental rights and juvenile delinquency cases shall be conducted remotely if ordered by the chief judge or the presiding judge or, if not, shall be conducted in person.
b. Would be infeasible because the court, the clerk, or other participant in a proceeding lacks the technological resources necessary to conduct the proceeding or, for reasons directly related to the state of emergency or the public health emergency, lacks the staff resources necessary to conduct the proceeding.
(2) Circuit and county criminal trials with an in-custody defendant.
(3) Circuit trials for juveniles being tried as an adult.
(4) Juvenile delinquency trials.
(5) Circuit and county criminal trials with an out-of-custody defendant.
(6) Termination of parental rights trials.
(7) Circuit civil jury trials.
(8) County civil jury trials.
(9) All other trial court proceedings.
(2) Are encouraged, where consistent with public health and safety and the circuit’s operational plan, to:
b. Reassign judges and court staff to proceedings having the highest priority;
c. Implement scheduling practices that promote the conduct of as many jury trials as feasible; and
d. Communicate to the local Bar that lawyers must strictly comply with Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.545(a), which requires lawyers to conclude litigation as soon as it is reasonably and justly possible to do so, and that the pandemic alone is not a basis for a lawyer’s failure to prepare a case for trial or otherwise actively manage a case.
IV. SUSPENSION OF TIME PERIODS IN CERTAIN RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
(2) When the suspension ends and the time periods resume in a circuit or county within a circuit:
b. Each of the 10-day time periods in Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.191(p)(3) and Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.090(m)(3) shall be increased to 30 days until such time as the circuit or county within a circuit has transitioned to Phase 4.
(2) Be suspended during any period of time in which grand jury proceedings are suspended under Section III.A.(1)b. or IX.B. When the suspension ends and the time periods resume, any time that accrued under the rules for a person before the suspension began on March 13, 2020, shall be subtracted from the time periods provided by the rules.
V. DEFENDANTS ARRESTED ON WARRANT OR CAPIAS FROM ANOTHER FLORIDA JURISDICTION17
To mitigate the health risks associated with the incarceration and transportation of defendants during the pandemic, when a defendant is arrested on a warrant or capias from another Florida jurisdiction, chief judges of the circuit courts remain encouraged to facilitate communication between the circuit or county where the case originated (“home court”) and the circuit or county where the defendant is incarcerated (“holding court”), for the handling of matters on a temporary basis, as follows:For capiases and violation of probation warrants, before setting monetary bond or other conditions of pretrial release, the first appearance judge, in order to make a proper decision regarding monetary bond or other conditions of pretrial release, must rely on relevant information from the following individuals in the county that issued the capias or warrant: the issuing judge, defense counsel if any, and the state attorney.
Action taken by the holding court at first appearance and any pretrial release hearing should be promptly reported to the home court and reflected in the record of the case.
Any provision of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.131 inconsistent with these measures remains suspended.
B. Pleas. Judges remain encouraged to coordinate with prosecutors, attorneys, defendants, and victims in order to utilize section 910.035, Florida Statutes, which allows for pleas of guilty or nolo contendere for persons arrested in counties outside of the county of prosecution, upon the consent of the defendant and the state attorney in the county where the crime was committed.
C. Rights of Parties. In cases that are not handled by a plea or pretrial release such that the defendant will continue to be detained in the jurisdiction of the holding court for an indefinite period of time, chief judges are directed to ensure that the due process rights of the defendant are protected by facilitating the temporary transfer of the case to the holding court, if necessary; by having a judge from the holding court designated by the Chief Justice, or designated by the chief judge if the home and holding court are within the same circuit, as a judge of the home court to handle emergency or other necessary matters in the case; or by other appropriate means. D. Victims. The constitutional rights of crime victims must also be considered in all cases by the presiding judge.
VI. SPEEDY TRIAL PROCEDURE IN NONCRIMINAL TRAFFIC INFRACTION COURT PROCEEDINGS18
The time period involving the speedy trial procedure in noncriminal traffic infraction court proceedings shall remain suspended. When the suspension ends and the time period resumes, any time that accrued under the procedure for a person before the suspension began on March 13, 2020, shall be subtracted from the time period provided by the procedure.VII. FAMILY LAW FORMS19
Except as indicated below, the requirement that Florida Family Law Forms be notarized or signed in the presence of a deputy clerk remains suspended, if the filer includes the following statement before the filer’s signature:Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read this document and the facts stated in it are true.This exception does not apply to Florida Family Law Forms 12.902(f)(1), Marital Settlement Agreement for Dissolution of Marriage with Dependent or Minor Child(ren), 12.902(f)(2), Marital Settlement Agreement for Dissolution of Marriage with Property but No Dependent or Minor Child(ren), 12.902(f)(3), Marital Settlement Agreement for Simplified Dissolution of Marriage, and any other family law form that transfers the ownership of property, which must continue to be notarized or signed in the presence of a deputy clerk prior to filing.
VIII. VISITATION FOR CHILDREN UNDER THE PROTECTIVE SUPERVISION OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (DCF)20
Requirements for in-person visitation pursuant to circuit court orders entered under chapter 39, Florida Statutes, remain suspended. This order does not affect in-person visitations when all parties and the caregiver agree that the visitation can take place in a manner that does not pose a health threat.In lieu of in-person visitation, visitation shall be conducted through electronic means with video communication as the preferred means, although telephonic contact is permitted if video communication is not feasible.
The suspension of in-person visitation applies to parent-child visitation, sibling visitation, and visitation between children and other family members and non-relatives.
If a party seeks to reinstate in-person visitation while the suspension of inperson visitation requirements remains in effect, such reinstatement shall be determined on a case-by-case basis by the circuit court with jurisdiction over that party’s case. Reinstatement of in-person visitation may be ordered if the court determines that it will not jeopardize the health, safety, and well-being of all children and adults (including caregivers) who will be affected by the in-person visitation.
Nothing in these provisions regarding visitation for children under the protective supervision of the DCF overrides existing circuit administrative orders to the extent that those orders are not in conflict with this order. Circuits may enter additional administrative orders addressing visitation and contact pursuant to chapter 39, Florida Statutes, to the extent that they are not in conflict with this order.
IX. REVERSION TO A PREVIOUS PHASE
If a circuit or a county within the circuit reverts to a previous phase, as addressed in Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-32, as amended, the following provisions govern.(2) Were commenced before the reversion may proceed to completion in person if the chief judge determines that completion of the proceeding without delay is required by the interests of justice and determines, in consultation with the county health department or local health expert, that the in-person proceeding can be conducted in a manner that protects the health and safety of all participants. The requirements of the double jeopardy clause must be considered in criminal proceedings.
C. Speedy Trial. If a circuit or a county within the circuit reverts from Phase 3 to Phase 1 or Phase 2, all time periods involving the speedy trial procedure in criminal and juvenile court proceedings are suspended until 90 days after the Chief Justice has approved the recertification of a chief judge of a judicial circuit that the circuit or county within the circuit has returned to Phase 3 pursuant to Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-32, as amended. When the suspension ends and the time periods resume:
(2) Each of the 10-day time periods in Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.191(p)(3) and Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.090(m)(3) shall be increased to 30 days until such time as the circuit or county within a circuit has transitioned to Phase 4.
* * *
Additional orders extending or modifying these measures will be issued as warranted by changing circumstances during the public health emergency.DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on February 17, 2021.
| |
| Chief Justice Charles T. Canady | |
| ATTEST: | |
| |
| John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court |
John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court
Footnotes
2/ In re: COVID-19 Emergency Procedures in the Florida State Courts, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-13 (March 13, 2020); In re: COVID-19 Essential and Critical Trial Court Proceedings, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-15 (March 17, 2020); In re: COVID-19 Emergency Procedures for the Administering of Oaths via Remote Audio-Video Communication Equipment, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-16 (March 18, 2020); In re: COVID-19 Emergency Measures in the Florida State Courts, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-17 (March 24, 2020);In re: COVID-19 Emergency Procedures in Relation to Visitation for Children Under the Protective Supervision of the Department of Children and Families, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-18 (March 27, 2020); and In re: COVID-19 Emergency Procedures for Speedy Trial in Noncriminal Traffic Infraction Court Proceedings, Fla. Admin Order No. AOSC20-19 (March 30, 2020).
3/ This measure initially went into effect at the close of business on March 13, 2020. (AOSC20-13).
4/ This measure initially went into effect on Friday, March 13, 2020. (AOSC20-13).
5/ This measure initially went into effect on March 18, 2020. (AOSC20-16).
6/ This measure initially went into effect on March 18, 2020. (AOSC20-16).
7/ This measure initially went into effect on March 18, 2020. (AOSC20-16).
8/ This measure initially went into effect on March 16, 2020. (AOSC20-13).
9/ Postponements are subject to the six-month statutory maximum specified in section 40.23(2), Florida Statutes. If granting a postponement based on one or both of these reasons would exceed the statutory maximum because of a previous postponement granted to a potential juror, the chief judge or the presiding judge is encouraged to consider whether to grant an excusal based on either reason.
10/ For clarification purposes, the statutory provisions authorizing the reasons listed for excusals and postponements, which are necessitated by the pandemic, have been cited in Section III.C.(2). This clarification is effective as of June 16, 2020, nunc pro tunc.
11/ These measures initially went into effect on March 17, 2020. (AOSC20-15).
12/ A measure related to these proceedings initially went into effect on March 17, 2020. (AOSC20-15).
13/ This measure initially went into effect on March 17, 2020. (AOSC20-15).
14/ This measure initially went into effect at the close of business on March 13, 2020. (AOSC20-13 and AOSC20-17).
15/ This measure initially went into effect at the close of business on March 13, 2020. (AOSC20-17).
16/ This measure initially went into effect on March 24, 2020. (AOSC20-17).
17/ These measures initially took effect on March 24, 2020. (AOSC20-17).
18/ This measure initially took effect on March 13, 2020. (AOSC20-19).
19/ This measure initially took effect on March 24, 2020. (AOSC20-17).
20/ These measures initially took effect on March 27, 2020. (AOSC20-18).
AOSC 20-23 (10)
AOSC 20-23 (10) | IN RE: COMPREHENSIVE COVID-19 EMERGENCY MEASURES FOR FLORIDA TRIAL COURTS
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER1
As a result of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the State Surgeon General and State Health Officer on March 1, 2020, declared that a public health emergency exists in Florida, and the Governor on March 9, 2020, declared a state of emergency for the entire state. The Florida state courts have taken measures to mitigate the effects of this public health emergency upon the judicial branch and its participants. To that end, I have issued several administrative orders implementing temporary measures essential to the administration of justice during the COVID-19 pandemic.2 The overarching intent of those orders has been to mitigate the impact of COVID-19, while keeping the courts operating to the fullest extent consistent with public safety.It is the intent of the judicial branch to transition to optimal operations in a manner that protects the public’s health and safety during each of the following anticipated phases of the pandemic:
b) Phase 2 – in-person contact is authorized for certain purposes but requires use of protective measures;
c) Phase 3 – an effective vaccine is adequately available and in use and inperson contact is more broadly authorized; and
d) Phase 4 – COVID-19 no longer presents a significant risk to public health and safety.
Under the administrative authority conferred upon me by article V, section 2(b) of the Florida Constitution, by Florida Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.205(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 2.205(a)(2)(B)(v), and by Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 1-12.1(j),
IT IS ORDERED that:
I. GUIDING PRINCIPLES
B. To maintain judicial workflow to the maximum extent feasible, chief judges shall take all necessary steps to support the remote conduct of proceedings with the use of technology, in accordance with this administrative order and other applicable standards and guidance as may be adopted by the Chief Justice or supreme court. For purposes of this administrative order, “remote conduct,” “remotely conduct,” or “conducted remotely” means the conduct, in part or in whole, of a court proceeding using telephonic or other electronic means.
C. Nothing in this order is intended to limit a chief judge’s authority to conduct court business or to approve additional court proceedings or events that are required in the interest of justice, if doing so is consistent with this administrative order and protecting the health of the participants and the public.
D. Judges and court personnel who can effectively conduct court and judicial branch business from a remote location shall do so. Participants who have the capability of participating by electronic means in remote court proceedings shall do so.
II. USE OF TECHNOLOGY
B. The chief judge of each judicial circuit remains authorized to establish procedures for the use, to the maximum extent feasible, of communication equipment for the remote conduct of proceedings, as are necessary in their respective circuit due to the public health emergency.4
C. Administering of Oaths
(2) If a witness is not located within the State of Florida, a witness may consent to being put on oath via audio-video communication technology by a person qualified to administer an oath in the State of Florida.6
(3) All rules of procedure, court orders, and opinions applicable to remote testimony, depositions, and other legal testimony, including the attestation of family law forms, that can be read to limit or prohibit the use of audio-video communications equipment to administer oaths remotely or to witness the attestation of family law forms shall remain suspended.7
(4) Notaries and other persons qualified to administer an oath in the State of Florida may swear in new attorneys to The Florida Bar remotely by audio-video communication technology from a location within the State of Florida, provided they can positively identify the new attorney.
(5) For purposes of the provisions regarding the administering of oaths, the term “positively identify” means that the notary or other qualified person can both see and hear the witness or new attorney via audio-video communications equipment for purposes of readily identifying the witness or new attorney.
(2) In a law school practice program, the requirement in Rule 11-1.2(b) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar that an indigent person and the supervising attorney must consent in writing to representation by a supervised law student may be satisfied by the judge receiving the consent verbally under oath.
III. TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS
The following provisions govern the conduct of trial court proceedings during Phases 1 through 3, except as modified by Section IX., addressing reversions to a previous phase by a circuit or a county within the circuit.ii. The circuit is operating in Phase 2 or Phase 3 pursuant to Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-32, as amended, and the proceeding is conducted in a manner that is consistent with the circuit’s operational plan.
(3) Additional days equal to the number of days for which grand jury proceedings are suspended shall be restored to the term of the impaneled statewide grand jury or other impaneled grand jury; however, the number of days restored may not exceed the number of days the impaneled grand jury had remaining in its term when the suspension began.
b. Criminal jury trials if:
ii. Counsel for the defendant, if the defendant is represented, indicates orally on the record that they have discussed the potential advantages and disadvantages of remote conduct of the trial with the defendant and have concluded that the defendant has knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently agreed to the remote conduct of the trial; and
iii. The prosecutor indicates the State’s and, if applicable, the victim’s positions orally on the record regarding remote conduct of the trial for purposes of consideration by the presiding judge in determining whether to remotely conduct the trial.
(3) The cases selected for a remote jury trial must be:
b. Conducted pursuant to the requirements specified in the report titled Requirements and Evaluation Criteria – Remote Civil and Criminal Jury Trials and other applicable standards and guidance as may be adopted by the Chief Justice or supreme court.
(5) To conduct any portion of a remote jury trial in person:
b. The circuit or a county within the circuit must be operating in Phase 2 or Phase 3 pursuant to Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-32, as amended, and the proceeding must be conducted in a manner that is consistent with the circuit’s operational plan.
(2) Shall create a process whereby the:
ii. Is a person at higher risk for severe illness due to COVID-19 infection as identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and requests to be excused;
iii. Must care for a child or relative whose regular care provider is closed or unavailable for reasons related to COVID-19; or
iv. Is receiving leave pursuant to the Families First Coronavirus Response Act.
ii. Has suffered a financial or personal loss due to COVID-19 that makes it a hardship to perform jury service.9, 10
criminal arraignments;
hearings on motions to set or modify monetary bail for individuals who are in custody;
juvenile dependency shelter hearings;
juvenile delinquency detention hearings;
hearings on petitions for injunctions relating to safety of an individual;
hearings on petitions for risk protection orders;
hearings on petitions for the appointment of an emergency temporary guardian;
hearings to determine whether an individual should be involuntarily committed under the Baker Act or the Marchman Act; and
hearings on petitions for extraordinary writs as necessary to protect constitutional rights.
(3) In Phase 1 and Phase 2, essential and critical trial court proceedings shall be conducted remotely, unless the chief judge or presiding judge, in consultation with the chief judge, determines that it is necessary to conduct the proceeding in person. If the circuit or county within a circuit is operating in Phase 1, in-person conduct of a proceeding may occur if the chief judge, in consultation with the county health department or local health expert, determines that the inperson proceeding can be conducted in a manner that protects the health and safety of all participants. If the circuit or county within a circuit is operating in Phase 2, in-person conduct of a proceeding must be consistent with the circuit’s operational plan.
(4) It is recognized that certain essential or critical trial court proceedings in some jurisdictions may in extraordinary, limited circumstances be unavoidably delayed due to the exigencies of the ongoing emergency. When this occurs, chief judges are required to take all steps feasible to minimize the delay.
(2) Non-jury trials in:
b. Termination of parental rights and juvenile delinquency cases shall be conducted remotely if ordered by the chief judge or the presiding judge or, if not, shall be conducted in person.
b. Would be infeasible because the court, the clerk, or other participant in a proceeding lacks the technological resources necessary to conduct the proceeding or, for reasons directly related to the state of emergency or the public health emergency, lacks the staff resources necessary to conduct the proceeding.
(2) Circuit and county criminal trials with an in-custody defendant.
(3) Circuit trials for juveniles being tried as an adult.
(4) Juvenile delinquency trials.
(5) Circuit and county criminal trials with an out-of-custody defendant.
(6) Termination of parental rights trials.
(7) Circuit civil jury trials.
(8) County civil jury trials.
(9) All other trial court proceedings.
2. Streamlined civil cases shall be identified based on criteria determined by the chief judge and specified in the administrative order. Criteria that the chief judge may wish to consider for the identification of streamlined cases include whether the case involves: few parties; non-complex issues related to liability and damages; few anticipated pretrial motions; limited need for discovery; few witnesses; minimal documentary evidence; and an anticipated trial length of less than two days.
3. General civil cases are all other civil cases.
2. Was filed before April 30, 2021, the case management order shall be issued within 30 days of service of the complaint on the last of all named defendants or by May 28, 2021, whichever date is later. The case management order shall address each deadline identified under Section III.G.(1)a.ii. and the projected date for trial if such event has not yet occurred in the case or has not yet been specified by other court order.
c. Each administrative order issued by the chief judge pursuant to this section and written civil case management protocol described in Section III.G.(1)b. shall be submitted to the chair of the Workgroup on the Improved Resolution of Civil Cases, as established by In Re: Workgroup on Improved Resolution of Civil Cases, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC19-73 (Oct. 31, 2019), by May 7, 2021. If subsequently amended, the administrative order or protocol shall be submitted to the chair of the workgroup within seven days after the amendment is issued.
(3) Are encouraged, where consistent with public health and safety and the circuit’s operational plan, to:
b. Reassign judges and court staff to proceedings having the highest priority;
c. Implement scheduling practices that promote the conduct of as many jury trials as feasible; and
d. Communicate to the local Bar that lawyers must strictly comply with Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.545(a), which requires lawyers to conclude litigation as soon as it is reasonably and justly possible to do so, and that the pandemic alone is not a basis for a lawyer’s failure to prepare a case for trial or otherwise actively manage a case.
IV. SUSPENSION OF TIME PERIODS IN CERTAIN RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
(2) When the suspension ends and the time periods resume in a circuit or county within a circuit:
b. Each of the 10-day time periods in Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.191(p)(3) and Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.090(m)(3) shall be increased to 30 days until such time as the circuit or county within a circuit has transitioned to Phase 4.
(2) Be suspended during any period of time in which grand jury proceedings are suspended under Section III.A.(1)b. or IX.B. When the suspension ends and the time periods resume, any time that accrued under the rules for a person before the suspension began on March 13, 2020, shall be subtracted from the time periods provided by the rules.
V. DEFENDANTS ARRESTED ON WARRANT OR CAPIAS FROM ANOTHER FLORIDA JURISDICTION18
To mitigate the health risks associated with the incarceration and transportation of defendants during the pandemic, when a defendant is arrested on a warrant or capias from another Florida jurisdiction, chief judges of the circuit courts remain encouraged to facilitate communication between the circuit or county where the case originated (“home court”) and the circuit or county where the defendant is incarcerated (“holding court”), for the handling of matters on a temporary basis, as follows:For capiases and violation of probation warrants, before setting monetary bond or other conditions of pretrial release, the first appearance judge, in order to make a proper decision regarding monetary bond or other conditions of pretrial release, must rely on relevant information from the following individuals in the county that issued the capias or warrant: the issuing judge, defense counsel if any, and the state attorney.
Action taken by the holding court at first appearance and any pretrial