RES 214 Draft 01 2010-2012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

catch -up. Anecdotal feedback from staff raise questions about the accuracy of this "make shift" notification process however, Hawaii County required this notification of additional reports as a "lesson learned" from the Kauai Prosecutor's Office who abandoned electronic transfer of reports from the police because they could not tell if updated reports were received. OPA acquired its Laserfiche document management system to accommodate the expected electronic receipt of police reports for electronic discovery, and electronic filing. However, within a short period of time, it became clear that without further programming and technical assistance, we are unable to efficiently deposit police reports into the Laserfiche system. The process as it stands now requires a staff member to manually select narrative documents or pdfs from individual case files in RMS and print them generally one by one, then scan them into Laserfiche. The scope of this problem i.e., electronic transfer of information from police to prosecutor with reliable updating capacity is statewide. With our Laserfiche document management system, it was anticipated that district court calendars could be entirely paperless. Here again, we learned that despite willingness to do electronic filing, electronic redaction, document transfer among all the criminal justice partners, including the Public Defender Office and private defense attorneys, the system partners were not at all the same capacity and willingness to change the "judicial business model" to an electronic, paperless environment. Another on -going example is the judicial court rules requiring redaction of personnel information (Rule 9, Hawaii Court Rules) was delayed for two years because of technical, resource challenges, and institutional resistance. Parts of the electronic business environment are ready, but are not connected and fully operational. This is a state -wide issue. The success of past automated, integrated information pilot projects have been demonstrated, but does not guarantee future success without enhanced collaboration for different environments and preparation for change. As an example, not all counties have implemented the process because of differing reasons, some technical and some resistance to change. Moreover, many future information sharing plans are based upon the Horizontal Integration Project; this includes the Judiciary's Information Management System (JIMS) eFiling to enable electronic case initiation and filing of court document scheduled for completion by June, 2012, and the Juvenile Justice Information System's Data Broker to be started in 2012 and completed by the end of 2013. All affected agencies have been notified that the Horizontal Integration Project does not capture a significant percentage of non - arrest cases filed with the courts or tracked in juvenile justice system. The Prosecutor for Hawaii County has a sense of urgency to implement the next phase of Information Interface between the HPD and her Office, and simultaneously plan for the information exchange with HCJDC, JJIS and the Judiciary, and implement that Third Part as soon as possible based upon available funding. Expected changes in leadership, staffing, and loss of "institutional knowledge" will occur at the end of 2012 at the Hawaii County Prosecutor's Office. Despite written plans, much of the success of the Horizontal Integration Project is experiential, based upon non - recorded steps. It is expected that past 25- 30 years of vision continuity in the Hawaii County Prosecutor will require some "learning curve" for the new prosecutor and administrative staff. AG /CPJAD #1(a) (Rev 03/23/2010) Page 2