(Special contribution by Michael Sankey of BRB Publications, Inc.)

Effective June 8, 2008, the recording fee for each document recorded in West Virginia recording offices will increase by $5.00. There is no fee increase for document searches, copies or certifications.

The new fees will be as follows:
Deed will be $36.00; Deed of Trust will be $16.00; Amendment will be $16.00; and Assignment or Release will be $11.00. Thanks to the folks at Ernst Publishing for their assistance on clarifying each of the new fees.
The fee increase was part of S.B. 622 which can be found here.

If you read the bill, please be aware it is somewhat confusing. The bill does not contain language that says “there is a $5.00 fee increase,” but instead mentions monetarily the segments that make-up the entire cost of recording.

(Special contribution by Michael Sankey of BRB Publications, Inc.)

Effective July 1, 2008, significant changes are scheduled to take place in Vermont regarding criminal record access at the courts, from the Vermont Criminal Information Center (VCIC), and what will be reported on the VCIC record. These changes are triggered primarily from passage of Senate Bill 246.

Currently, the court fee for a criminal record search at a Vermont county district court is $10.00. Effective July 1, the fee will increase to $30.00 (per county search). Copy fees and certification fees will remain the same.

Currently, the fee for a criminal record search at the VCIC is also $10.00. Currently records are essentially released only to two public groups; the subject; to an employer but only if a conditional offer of employment is made.

Effective July 1, the fee for the state VCIC search will be $20.00 and the restrictions will be removed; records will be open to the public. The fee will increase again in July 2009 to $25.00. Currently all VCIC record requests must be made manually, but there are plans by the VCIC to have Internet access in place by December 2008.

However, there is an important caveat regarding what data will be reported by VCIC as of July 1st. Per the new law, the data reported on the VICI record will be restricted to only include the name, DOB, date of conviction, type of conviction, and offense level. The location of the court, the case docket number, and arrest-only records will not be shown. Thus, if there is a question on the name, a name variation, or common names with possible identical DOBs, one must pay the $30 search fee at each county district court searched to find the docket number in order to access the document file. Only 2 of Vermont’s 14 counties provide public access terminals - Chittenden and Rutland - which may provide a docket look-up.

The Vermont Administrative Office of the Courts and the people at VCIC are sympathetic to the problem. The VCIC has stated they will do everything possible to help narrow down the false positives. They predict a 5-day turnaround time to complete a search.

To view the legislation, go to a Senate Bill 246 (S.246).

What do you think about these changes?
Jimmie Mesis, Editor-in-Chief
PI Magazine

A little noticed but potentially significant (for public records researchers) California Attorney General opinion was released a week ago. The opinion upends the almost universal interpretation of the Public Records Act by county Assessors pertaining to disseminating property addresses on the Internet.

If you go to any California county Assessor online public inquiry you’ll see an explanation similar to this on the Stanislaus County site:

California Government Code 6254.21 states that “No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of the individual.”

Therefore the agencies don’t reveal anyone’s address.The law seems to be hewed to regarding the real property addresses for public officials, right? Not according to the AG. Deputy Attorney General Daniel Stone says the common interpretation is wrong and isn’t what the legislature intended.

As a practical matter, we believe that a broad and overly literal reading of section 6254.21(a) would lead to unworkable results. Some public agencies…might conclude that they were forced to refrain from making any property-related database accessible to any internet technology, no matter how secure or limited the network, due to the possibility that the data could contain home information of public officials. Other public agencies… might conclude that they were forced to review and redact their databases… Such an identification process would be difficult, time consuming, and inevitably incomplete. Furthermore, the resulting revised property databases… would no longer be comprehensive and would therefore be of diminished utility to users. We are hesitant to conclude that the Legislature could have intended such impractical results.

Simply put, the 1998 law was “intended to prevent public agencies from posting on their public websites any list or directory of public officials’ home addresses and telephone numbers, without first obtaining each official’s written permission to be included in the listing.” In other words, government agencies can’t construct a list of names and residential addresses of government employees and put that on their Internet sites.

Giving the Assessors permission to reconsider their ban on including addresses and names in their online databases, Stone states, simply:

Indeed, we believe that if the Legislature had in fact contemplated a comprehensively literal application of section 6254.21(a), that intention would have been more clearly reflected in the statute.

Give a kindly call to your local Assessor and ask her/him what changes they anticipate making in their Internet access in light of this opinion. What did the Assessor say?

Defendants Barred From Obtaining or Selling Consumers’ Phone Records to Third Parties

The Federal Trade Commission has put a permanent halt to an operation that allegedly obtained consumers’ confidential phone records without their knowledge or consent and sold them to third parties. The defendants are barred from obtaining consumers’ telephone records without their consent and court orders impose judgments on the defendants totaling more than $600,000 – the estimated amount of their ill-gotten gains.

This is the latest in a series of FTC cases targeting telephone pretexters – individuals who use false pretenses to obtain consumers’ confidential information. Since 2006 the FTC has charged sixteen individuals and their corporations with violating federal law by pretexting to obtain phone records of third parties. All have now been barred from pretexting and all have been ordered to give up the money they made engaging in the illegal practice.

In February 2007, the FTC asked a U.S. district court to order a permanent halt to the operations of a company that sold consumers’ confidential phone records, including information on calls placed and received. The FTC also sued the individuals who had used false pretenses to obtain the records from phone companies and then supplied those records to the company for a fee. The agency alleged these practices were unfair and deceptive in violation of federal law, and could endanger consumers’ safety. The agency also asked the court to order the defendants to give up their ill-gotten gains.

According to the FTC complaint, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that a customer’s phone records may only be disclosed “upon affirmative written request by the customer.” But the agency alleged that since at least 2005 Action Research Group, Inc., and its principals, Joseph and Matthew DePantes, sold confidential customer phone records, including lists of calls made and the dates, times, and duration of the calls, to third parties, without the knowledge or consent of the customers. To get the records, these defendants relied upon the other defendants, Eye in the Sky Investigations, Inc., Cassandra Selvage and Bryan Wagner, who obtained them from phone companies through “pretexting” – using “false pretenses, fraudulent statements, fraudulent or stolen documents or other misrepresentations, including posing as an account holder or as an employee” of a phone company. Selling the records constitutes an invasion of privacy that could endanger the health and safety of consumers, the agency alleged.

The DePantes and ARG agreed to settle the FTC charges. Defendants ESI, Cassandra Selvage, and Bryan Wagner are subject to default judgments entered by the court.

The settlement and default judgments permanently bar the defendants from obtaining, marketing or selling customer phone records or consumers’ personal information derived from those records. They also bar the defendants from pretexting or using others to pretext to obtain consumers’ information. The settlement order entered a judgment in the amount of $67,000 against the DePantes and ARG, the estimated amount of ill-gotten gains the defendants earned from their illegal scheme; the judgment was suspended upon a payment of $3,000 based on the defendants’ inability to pay. In the default judgments, the court ordered Wagner to give up $428,085 in ill-gotten gains and ESI and Selvage to give up $110,762.

The Commission vote to accept the settlements was 5-0. They were filed in U.S. District Court for the middle district of Florida, Orlando division.

NOTE: Stipulated final orders are for settlement purposes only and do not constitute an admission by the defendant of a law violation. Consent judgments have the force of law when signed by the judge.

What are your comments in this topic?

Jimmie Mesis, Editor-in-Chief
PI Magazine

The FTC reached an agreement on Wednesday for $600,000 in settlements and judgments against several private investigators others involved in the Hewlett-Packard Co. boardroom scandal.

The FTC settlement imposed a $67,000 penalty against Matthew DePante, his father, Joseph DePante, and their now-defunct company, Action Research Group Inc., which was based in Clearwater, Fla. All but $3,000 was suspended due to their inability to pay.

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando division, also entered default judgments against DePante’s subcontractors, Bryan Wagner, who must pay $428,085, and Cassandra Selvage and her company, Eye in the Sky Investigations Inc., who must pay $110,762.

More details on this topic can be found at the FTC website as well as other published articles. You can read the actual FTC complaints here.

What are your comments on this topic?

Jimmie Mesis, Editor-in-Chief
PI Magazine

It’s the season when government agencies attend to their voter registration online access. Election time presents a good opportunity to call people for information gathering. I’ll leave the details to your imagination, but in the interim check the New York Voter Registration Search at the NYS Voter site, operated by the New York Board of Elections. A search to confirm voter registration status requires first and last name, date of birth, county and zip code.

There may be less demand for this service, but South Dakota Secretary of State Voter Registration Portal has added voter lookup by name and date of birth.

Law enforcement agencies may release motor vehicle reports that they obtained in the course of an investigation in response to a public records request, according to an opinion issued by the Wisconsin Attorney General.

Van Hollen reasoned that the DPPA identifies certain permissible uses for which a state motor vehicle department (a “DMV”) may disclose specified personal information from motor vehicle records. It is a permissible use for a DMV to disclose personal information “[f]or use by any government agency, including any court or law enforcement agency in carrying out its functions . . ..”

Van Hollen further reasoned that the Wisconsin Public Records Law imposes a statutory duty on law enforcement agencies to respond to public records requests. In the course of carrying out its functions, including responding to public records requests, a law enforcement agency therefore may disclose personal information obtained from a DMV that is included in law enforcement agency records responsive to such requests.

Some personal information may be redacted, as specified in other laws.

Impersonating someone to a government agency or hiring another to carry out this ruse could result in a criminal prosecution.

The operators of BNT Investigations, which was not licensed in Washington state, where they were based, plead guilty to crimes that carry a minimum 2-year sentence. They “assumed the individuals’ identities and persuaded government agencies such as the Internal Revenue Service, the Social Security Administration and state labor departments to hand over tax, wage and other confidential records.” Private investigators from various states who submitted personally identifying information to the firm were also indicted and are still awaiting trial.

Private investigators, insurance companies and attorneys who hire others obtain personal information should confirm that they do not get unauthorized personal information from a government agency. Other laws invoke penalties for using subterfuge (not necessarily impersonating the subject) to secure telephone records from the provider or financial information from banks and account holders. Our clients don’t necessarily know this. It’s our job to educate them.

Data reseller USSearch.com will pay $250,000 for accessing and selling non-public personally identifiable information obtained from credit bureaus. The New York Attorney General determined that US Search illegally accessed the consumer information more than 2,385 times. If they sold each report for 100 bucks that would just cover the fine and penalties. Then there’s the litigation costs…

The recent California Supreme Court decision overturning California’s law banning same-sex marriage as unconstitutional provides a timely discussion of the domestic partnership registry. California, among other states and municipalities provides a means for couples — variously, same or opposite sex in civil unions or domestic partnerships — to register their relationship.

I don’t know of any online database of names of registered domestic partners, but there are data sources. This is the old-fashioned and still often the most reliable means of confirming a fact: call or visit the relevant government office! In California, the Secretary of State records the Declaration of Domestic Partnership and the Termination of Domestic Partnership. This office responds to telephone inquiries and will search by a name, providing the partner name, date of registration and the residential address. You can also go to one of the offices to get a copy of either form.

Oregon defines a domestic partnership registration as a vital record, which is confidential. Domestic Partnership Registration in New York City is with the City Clerk. County Recorder offices and state health departments are also repositories for these filings. Some cities, counties and states that have civil union or domestic partnership laws are listed here.

Currently, there are 49,550 registrations on file at the California Secretary of State. Of these, about 5,600 have filed terminations. By law, this office only accepts terminations up to 5 years after registration. Beyond that time, couples must go to court to end a domestic partnership.

What has been your experience requesting information from a domestic partnership registry?

It looks like the