Print Version - Arizona Judicial Department

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Courts are working closely with state and local law enforcement, local counties, and other state government agencies on selecting the appropriate technologies for both access and signatures. A proliferation of different accesses, passwords, and technologies creates confusion and becomes unmanageable for the ordinary user who requires access to multiple systems. Courts also desire to keep the cost of electronic filing as low as possible to prevent barriers to its use, especially for pro se litigants, while maintaining integrity, authenticity, and non-repudiation. To that end, TAC re-reviewed digital signature technology using PKI in 2006. Their previous conclusions were reaffirmed -- that the business need and volume are still not significant enough to warrant the expense of implementing a complete digital signature infrastructure like PKI. For internally generated and signed documents of a routine nature, system access and security along with either a typed or imaged signature remain sufficient for the majority of courts nationally who are doing electronic signatures. The Supreme Court has issued administrative orders in support of e-filing allowing the “/s/” designation and a typed signature with valid system ID and password. The Superior Court in Maricopa County is also able to use server-side certificates to “sign” documents being issued for use outside the court. TAC recommended that this issue be revisited as the use of electronic signatures increases; they will periodically evaluate alternative approaches and research practices used in other state and federal courts. An integration project where law enforcement issues electronic citations is well underway in many jurisdictions around the state. Going forward, the judiciary needs to address both the defendant’s and the officer’s signature. A citizen cannot be expected to have a digital certificate available during a traffic stop; so alternative signatures such as biometric or “facsimile” signatures are more likely to be used. The officer’s ID and password verification is considered sufficient electronic signature for transmitting electronic citations to the court. Officers print a record of the stop and provide that to the citizen for reference. The court is also required to print the electronic citation on demand. Smart<strong>Print</strong>, a statewide solution for doing so for tickets produced by one vendor’s hardware/software has been implemented at the AOC. DPS has constructed a print capability for its TraCS software used statewide, as well. On another front, several superior courts wish to implement electronic signatures for minute entries being distributed electronically. Minute entries can contain orders of the court and as such are documents that must be signed by the judge and maintained as a record in the case. With the implementation of electronic document management systems (EDMS), courts wish to file electronically prepared documents directly into the EDMS without first printing, signing, and then imaging that document. The <strong>Arizona</strong> Supreme Court has previously ruled (in 1943) that “The signature may be written by hand, or printed, or stamped, or typewritten, or engraved, or photographed, or cut from one instrument and attached to another” in a case involving whether facsimile signatures of the treasurer on bonds were valid. It reaffirmed in CV-06-0280-SA that intention of authentication carries more legal weight than the presence of a name impressed upon paper. The opinion also reaffirmed the authority of Rule 124, which states, “[a] n electronically filed document constitutes the filing of the original written and signed paper under the rules governing practice and procedure in the courts of this state [emphasis added].” ARIZONA JUDICIAL BRANCH | INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY STRATEGIC PLAN: 2013-2015 158
Inside the court system, the issue is much more one of procedure than of technology. That may be reversed when contemplating materials passing from outside the court system to inside or vice versa. Effort is focusing on the easier task of getting electronic filings accepted within the judiciary before switching to the harder task of ensuring they are accepted outside the judiciary. ARIZONA JUDICIAL BRANCH | INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY STRATEGIC PLAN: 2013-2015 159
Page 1 and 2:
FISCAL YEARS 2013—2015 ARIZONA JU
Page 3 and 4:
ARIZONA JUDICIAL BRANCH INFORMATION
Page 5 and 6:
are now focusing, in cooperation wi
Page 7 and 8:
Creation of standardized processing
Page 9 and 10:
information requires coordination o
Page 11 and 12:
I. INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND The Ariz
Page 13 and 14:
justice history files. Being centra
Page 15 and 16:
CHAIR HON. ANDREW HURWITZ Vice Chie
Page 17 and 18:
COURT AUTOMATION COORDINATING COMMI
Page 19 and 20:
CHAIR ANDREW HURWITZ Vice Chief Jus
Page 21 and 22:
Justice 20/20: A Vision of the Futu
Page 23 and 24:
III. JUDICIAL BRANCH VISION We must
Page 25 and 26:
objective data with the risk level
Page 27 and 28:
1-B SIMPLIFYING AND ENHANCING SYSTE
Page 29 and 30:
GOAL 2 MAINTAINING A PROFESSIONAL W
Page 31 and 32:
GOAL 3 IMPROVING COMMUNICATIONS Pub
Page 33 and 34:
Review the current processing of do
Page 35 and 36:
5-B MODERNIZING THE ATTORNEY ADMISS
Page 37 and 38:
Determine the allocation of availab
Page 39 and 40:
Improved effectiveness in jury mana
Page 41 and 42:
STRATEGIC TECHNOLOGY PROJECT ALIGNM
Page 43 and 44:
VI. FISCAL YEAR 2012 ACCOMPLISHMENT
Page 45 and 46:
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION FY 2012 AJIN EN
Page 47 and 48:
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION FY 2012 ARIZONA
Page 49 and 50:
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION FY 2012 ENTERPR
Page 51 and 52:
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION FY 2012 STATEWI
Page 53 and 54:
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION FY 2012 ACCOMPL
Page 55 and 56:
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION FY 2012 EDMS El
Page 57 and 58:
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION FY 2012 automat
Page 59 and 60:
Pima Courts Pinal Courts Clerk’s
Page 61 and 62:
VII. CURRENT ENVIRONMENT ANALYSIS H
Page 63 and 64:
ARIZONA JUDICIAL BRANCH INFORMATION
Page 65 and 66:
need to balance the immediate need
Page 67 and 68:
BACKGROUND The Judicial Branch is d
Page 69 and 70:
IMPACTS The impact is widespread. E
Page 71 and 72:
First-level support assists court p
Page 73 and 74:
CENTRALIZED HELP DESK Improved ove
Page 75 and 76:
BACKGROUND The digital world is bec
Page 77 and 78:
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT BUSINESS VALUE
Page 79 and 80:
BACKGROUND As courts enter the real
Page 81 and 82:
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT BUSINESS VALUE
Page 83 and 84:
BACKGROUND The courts embarked on t
Page 85 and 86:
to proceed with development using t
Page 87 and 88:
DEPENDENCIES The maintenance and c
Page 89 and 90:
een expanded to accept an XML data
Page 91 and 92:
Improved quality of service to the
Page 93 and 94:
BACKGROUND Courts are following ind
Page 95 and 96:
output a stream of digital data. An
Page 97 and 98:
ELECTRONIC CASE FILING Extend fili
Page 99 and 100:
Background In addition to supportin
Page 101 and 102:
Provided project milestone reports,
Page 103 and 104:
IX. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY STRATEGI
Page 105 and 106:
STRATEGIC PROJECTS BY OBJECTIVE Tra
Page 107 and 108:
A Description section describes the
Page 109 and 110:
TECHNOLOGY STRATEGIC PROJECTS Elect
Page 111 and 112: created basic infrastructure and bu
Page 113 and 114: STRATEGIC PROJECTS UTILITY ENHANCEM
Page 115 and 116: SUPPORT SERVICES PROVIDED: An aver
Page 117 and 118: design sessions. Training staff spe
Page 119 and 120: PROJECT GOALS Provide specific tra
Page 121 and 122: impact. TAC created a survey tool t
Page 123 and 124: PROJECT GOALS COMPUTER/TABLET REFRE
Page 125 and 126: PROJECT GOALS CORE SOFTWARE & SUPPO
Page 127 and 128: 1. Automated validation tables (AVT
Page 129 and 130: o Migrated current APETS software t
Page 139 and 140: The data collection mechanism for t
Page 141 and 142: PROJECT DESCRIPTION This project re
Page 143 and 144: SNAPSHOT CLASS STATUS RISK Utility
Page 145 and 146: PROJECT GOALS ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT M
Page 147 and 148: Enhancement On-going Medium Frontie
Page 149 and 150: during the workday by storing image
Page 151 and 152: Review functions (and their corresp
Page 153 and 154: Enable court users and/or the CMS i
Page 155 and 156: CENTRAL CASE INDEX (CCI) Began uti
Page 157 and 158: electronic filing submissions. The
Page 159 and 160: filing “front door,” a single e
Page 161: solution. Discussions were held abo
Page 165 and 166: SNAPSHOT CLASS STATUS RISK Utility
Page 167 and 168: PROJECT GOALS INFRASTRUCTURE MAINTE
Page 169 and 170: Continued to expand hardware and ap
Page 171 and 172: Firewalls and security monitoring e
Page 173 and 174: Create a single governance structur
Page 175 and 176: then printed and delivered, or soon
Page 177 and 178: PROJECT GOALS JOLTSAZ NEXT GENERATI
Page 179 and 180: PROJECT GOALS JUDGE’S AUTOMATION
Page 181 and 182: ARIZONA JUDICIAL BRANCH | INFORMATI
Page 183 and 184: Produced a couple of ADRS training
Page 185 and 186: PROJECT GOALS JUSTICE WEB INTERFACE
Page 187 and 188: PROJECT GOALS LIMITED JURISDICTION
Page 189 and 190: The existing case management system
Page 191 and 192: Increase backlog collections by re-
Page 193 and 194: Courtesy notices Delinquency notic
Page 195 and 196: The Limited Jurisdiction Standardiz
Page 197 and 198: These projects are planned to dovet
Page 199 and 200: Began work on the core architectura
Page 201 and 202: PROJECT GOALS STATEWIDE E-WARRANT S
Page 203 and 204: PROJECT GOALS TECHNICAL TRAINING PR
Page 205 and 206: Various other products that are use
Page 207 and 208: APPENDIX - A. HARDWARE ENVIRONMENT
Page 209 and 210: APPENDIX - B. SOFTWARE ENVIRONMENT
Page 211 and 212: SOFTWARE APPLICATION Child Support
Page 213 and 214:
Software Application Vendor/Interna
Page 215 and 216:
APPENDIX - C
Page 217 and 218:
ARS Arizona Revised Statutes AS/400
Page 219 and 220:
E-COURT An ad hoc subcommittee of t
Page 221 and 222:
JPIJ Judicial Project Investment Ju
Page 223 and 224:
SSIA SQL Server Integration Service
show all

Print Version - Arizona Judicial Department

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?