The Supreme Court of Florida has recently ruled out that electronic recordings of trial proceedings should be considered public records and therefore available for public inspection. The decision was taken in spite of the suggestions of the state’s judicial commission that came up with the initiative that these types of court documents be by default exempt from being released for public scrutiny unless otherwise defined by the judge.

The Supreme Court motivated its ruling in the favor of unrestricted public access to video and audio court records was taken based upon the provisions of California open government laws. From the other hand the high court formulated a separate recommendation for the courts of lower jurisdictions to warn the parties involved in trial process to be careful so they not release confidential information in private conversations in the courtroom during the trial, say, in a background dialogue. The implied recordings include specifically electronic records, videotapes or stenographic tapes of court proceedings. The decision in favor of public access to court proceedings should be regarded as another logical step to protect the public’s right to have by default an unrestricted access to court records as just another type of public records regardless of the way or means the records are created.

The court’s decision followed the controversial decision by the Pasco County judge to deny request lodged by one of the state’s newspapers that wished to check up audio recording of a sentencing hearing as an alternative to a stenographic record of the trial process. Many records requestors believe having both written transcripts and audio/video recordings accessible can helf better understand what actually was happenning during the trial, and whatever the opponents say, the supreme court’s ruling will have positive effect on further implementing the open government principle of having the elected officials better accountable before the public who elects them. You have the right to know.