How do Utah court public-access portals handle sealed or reclassified criminal records?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Utah’s public-access portals routinely exclude sealed, expunged, juvenile, and otherwise non-public criminal records from online search tools like Xchange and PACER, and the Utah Rules and court guidance treat sealing as a hard barrier to public viewing unless a court orders otherwise [1] [2] [3]. Recent administrative moves have tightened electronic accessibility in federal courts sitting in Utah, shifting sealed and many restricted filings out of public CM/ECF view and requiring alternative service and paper handling for court-generated sealed documents [4].
1. Open courts law collides with categorical restrictions
State law and court rules start from a presumption of public access — Rule 4-202.03 declares that “any person may access a public record” — but the same rule and related provisions explicitly authorize classification of records as private, protected, or sealed, requiring courts to weigh public access against competing interests such as fair trial rights and victim safety [5]. That means the statutory and rule framework affirms openness while embedding clear exceptions that permit entire criminal records or portions of them to be removed from public portals when the court so orders [5] [6].
2. What the portals actually do: hide sealed and expunged cases
Utah’s primary public search system for state cases, Xchange, does not display records “not open to public inspection,” and specifically excludes sealed cases, adoptions, civil commitments, and expunged matters from its public indexes and document images [1] [7]. Likewise, federal electronic access through PACER in the District of Utah omits cases or documents “sealed by order of a judge,” so the practical effect across state and federal systems is that sealed criminal records are removed from routine online visibility [2].
3. Sealed means sealed — including limits on parties and copies
Utah’s explanatory guidance emphasizes that sealed records are rare and are “physically sealed,” such that no one — not even a party — can view or copy them without a court order, and that filers must provide public-redacted versions where filings contain non-public information [3]. Expungement in Utah is treated as a sealing process that removes a criminal record from public view rather than destroying it, reinforcing that legal sealing removes materials from public indices and online repositories [8].
4. Operational and procedural consequences of sealing for electronic systems
When documents are sealed or reclassified as restricted, courts still file them in their electronic case-management systems under existing procedures, but they are not viewable through public portals; in the federal District of Utah the court has recently removed electronic access to restricted and sealed documents in response to Administrative Office guidance, obliging parties to use alternate means of service and the court to mail paper copies of court-generated sealed orders for the time being [4]. That administrative posture underscores a technical separation — sealed documents can exist in back-end systems (for recordkeeping and judicial use) while being deliberately prevented from populating public-facing portals [4] [1].
5. Tensions, trade-offs and unanswered operational details
The state’s approach balances transparency and privacy: public summaries and docket metadata for cases remain available in many instances, but identifying exhibits, transcripts, juvenile matters, protective-order filings, and sealed criminal case files are excluded from Xchange and other public tools to protect privacy and safety [1] [9]. Critics who prioritize open courts will point to administrative tightening — especially federal restrictions on CM/ECF visibility — as reducing transparency, while privacy advocates argue these controls are necessary to enforce sealing orders and statutory protections; specific operational questions about who can access sealed documents from back-end systems and how reclassification is reflected in third-party data aggregators are not fully answered in the provided sources [4] [5] [1].