NEW RULES, RULE AMENDMENTS TAKE EFFECT MARCH 1
NEW RULES, RULE AMENDMENTS TAKE EFFECT MARCH 1
MIKE HAGBURG Attorney at Law
Two new rules will take effect March 1 as part of the North Dakota Supreme Court’ s annual amendments to the procedural rules.
New Administrative Rule 58 addresses vexatious litigation. It defines a vexatious litigant as someone who“ habitually, persistently, and without reasonable grounds” engages in conduct that hinders the judicial process, such as making multiple unwarranted filings. The rule defines how complaints about a vexatious litigation may be made and what steps must be taken in determining whether a person is a vexatious litigant. It then allows a presiding judge or the Supreme Court to enter an order requiring the vexatious litigant to get court permission before being allowed to make further filings. An order made under the rule may be appealed to the Supreme Court.
Rule 20 of the Rules of Juvenile Procedure establishes guidelines for the use of restraints in juvenile court. The guidelines are based on the standards developed by the Supreme Court in Interest of R. W. S., 2007 ND 37. In general, the rule provides that restraints must be removed before a court proceeding unless specific facts exist to justify the use of restraints.
The Rules of Criminal Procedure saw a variety of amendments. In particular, attorneys and criminal defendants should be aware of amendments to Rule 23.1 on jury expenses. The rule was amended to allow assessment of jury expenses when, without justifiable or reasonable excuse, a defendant fails to appear for a jury trial. This is a significant change from past practice.
Criminal Rule 3 on the complaint and Rule 4 on arrest warrants were amended to allow licensed peace officers to provide support for applications for complaints or warrants through a written declaration made under penalty of perjury. The amendments were designed to facilitate the submission of electronic documents in support of complaints and warrants. Rule 41 was similarly amended, effective Dec. 15, 2016, to allow search warrant applications to be supported by written declarations.
Criminal Rule 11 on pleas was amended to clarify the procedure for entering a conditional guilty plea. Rules 5, 5.1, 7, and 9 were amended to replace the term“ preliminary examination” with“ preliminary hearing” throughout the criminal rules.
Administrative Rule 41 saw significant amendments intended to clarify the scope of public court records access. The Rule’ s Section 4 was amended to provide that public access terminals will be available at each county courthouse. The section was further amended to allow attorneys remote access to court records stored in the Odyssey system. The public and attorneys have been allowed to use these methods of access for several years: the amendments make this a formal part of court policy.
Section 4 also was amended to allow the Court to enact and implement policies to regulate remote access to court records. This amendment was driven by a need for the Court’ s technology department to develop methods to deter data miners from overwhelming the Court’ s public records search site with automatic records requests, activity which slows access for ordinary users.
Several additional amendments to Rule 41 were made to better protect certain types of court records. Section 4 was amended to limit remote access by name search to closed criminal cases that did not result in a conviction. Section 5 was amended to exclude from public access dismissed pretrial diversion cases, cases in which a magistrate finds no probable cause for the issuance of a complaint, and information about patrons of the North Dakota Legal Self Help Center.
The rule amendments are available on the Supreme Court website and will be published in the next edition of the printed rulebooks.
22 THE GAVEL