Louisiana Senate Bill SB208

Louisiana 2010 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/29/10
• Refer: 3/29/10
• Report Pass: 3/30/10
• Engrossed: 4/8/10
• Refer: 4/12/10
• Report Pass: 5/13/10
• Enrolled: 6/1/10
• Chaptered: 6/9/10
• Passed: 6/9/10

Caption

Authorizes the clerk of the City Court of Lake Charles to destroy specified records of no value with consent of the court. (8/15/10)

Impact

The bill modifies existing state laws relating to the destruction of judicial records, particularly eviction suits and misdemeanor convictions. It is designed to enable clerks to clear out obsolete records more efficiently, which proponents argue will facilitate better management of court resources. This legislative adjustment aims to ensure that record-keeping is up to date, thereby potentially easing administrative burdens on the city courts involved.

Summary

Senate Bill 208 focuses on the management of city court records in Louisiana, specifically allowing the clerks of certain city courts, including Lake Charles, to destroy records deemed to be of no further value. This authority is contingent on the consent of the presiding judge, and the records can only be destroyed after specific time periods have elapsed following the last action on the record or after all appeals are exhausted. This change is intended to streamline the handling of court documents and reduce unnecessary storage of outdated records.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding SB 208 appears generally supportive, particularly among those focused on judicial efficiency and administrative practicality. By minimizing the clutter of unused records, city courts may improve their operational efficiency. However, there may be underlying concerns regarding the appropriate criteria for deeming records as no longer valuable and the potential for misjudgments in deciding which records to destroy.

Contention

While the bill seeks to optimize record management, it may raise questions about transparency and public access to court records. Critics might argue that the destruction of records, especially in cases related to eviction and misdemeanor convictions, could jeopardize historical accountability and hinder individuals seeking to review past legal matters. The success of the bill will likely depend on the implementation of safeguards to ensure that vital records are preserved appropriately and that the criteria for destruction are applied judiciously.