Are Restraining Orders Public Record and Who Can Access Them?
Learn how restraining order records are handled, who may access them, and the factors that influence their visibility in public and private contexts.
Restraining orders arise from sensitive situations involving alleged harassment, abuse, or threats, carrying significant legal and social weight. This raises questions about whether these court records are public and who can access them, impacting privacy, employment, and background checks. Understanding how courts and other entities handle this information clarifies the line between public and private data.
Court-Filed Restraining Orders
Seeking a restraining order involves filing documents with a court, making the petition, evidence, temporary orders, and any final order part of the official case file. Rooted in common law and First Amendment principles favoring transparency, court proceedings and records are generally open to the public.1Vanderbilt Law Review. Public Access to Civil Court Records: A Common Law Approach This principle holds the justice system accountable. Consequently, restraining order case files are typically public information unless specific measures are taken to restrict access. The sensitive nature of the case does not automatically make the records private.
Accessing these public court records usually requires contacting the court where the order was filed. Individuals can often visit the courthouse clerk’s office to request and review a specific case file, sometimes needing party names or a case number. Many courts also provide electronic access through courthouse terminals or online portals. The extent of online information varies; some offer full document access, while others provide only summaries like party names, hearing dates, and outcomes. Federal court records are largely available via the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system, often requiring user registration and fees, though waivers exist. State and local courts have diverse systems, ranging from free online access to requiring in-person visits or paid copy requests. Temporary restraining orders, while potentially less immediately visible online, are still part of the official court record.
Possible Sealing of Orders
While restraining orders are presumptively public, courts can restrict access in certain circumstances through a process called “sealing.” Achieving this is difficult due to the strong legal presumption favoring public access. A party must file a formal motion requesting sealing, providing specific, compelling reasons why privacy or safety interests outweigh the public’s right to know. General embarrassment is usually insufficient; the party must demonstrate a significant interest and show that less restrictive measures, like redacting specific details, are inadequate. Examples justifying sealing might include protecting trade secrets, minors, or individuals from credible harm.
The decision rests with the judge, who weighs the arguments against the principle of open courts. If “good cause” is shown, the judge issues an order specifying what is sealed. Courts more commonly seal or redact specific sensitive information—like financial details, medical records, or addresses—rather than the entire case file. Complete sealing of restraining order cases is relatively rare due to the high value placed on judicial transparency.
Access by Employers and Licensing Boards
Because restraining orders are generally public court documents, employers and professional licensing boards can potentially discover them. They might find this information by searching court records directly, either in person or through available online portals. Professional licensing boards, in particular, often review applicant or licensee backgrounds, which may include court record checks. Depending on the profession’s standards, a restraining order, especially one involving relevant conduct like violence, could prompt further review. Some boards require self-reporting of such orders.
However, legal constraints limit how employers and licensing boards can use this information. Federal laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibit employment discrimination based on protected characteristics.2U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidance suggests that using court records improperly, potentially including restraining orders, could lead to discrimination if it disproportionately affects protected groups and isn’t job-related. Decisions based on stereotypes rather than qualifications or conduct relevant to the job could risk discrimination claims.
Professional licensing boards must follow rules dictating what information is relevant to professional fitness. A restraining order might be considered if the underlying conduct directly relates to the profession’s duties, but its mere existence doesn’t guarantee adverse action. Boards typically consider the specific circumstances and any mitigating factors. The impact on employment or licensure depends heavily on the case details, the job or license requirements, and applicable legal standards.
Background Check Disclosures
The public nature of restraining orders means they can appear during background checks conducted for employment or tenant screening. When third-party companies, known as consumer reporting agencies (CRAs), perform these checks, they must comply with federal law.
The primary governing law is the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), which promotes accuracy, fairness, and privacy in consumer information collected by CRAs. The FCRA limits the reporting of adverse information. Under federal law (15 U.S. Code section 1681c), civil suits and judgments, which typically include restraining orders, generally cannot be reported by a CRA if they are more than seven years old.3U.S. House of Representatives Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 15 USC 1681c: Requirements Relating to Information Contained in Consumer Reports This differs from criminal convictions, which can often be reported indefinitely under federal law, though state laws may vary. Violating a restraining order can result in criminal charges, and those separate criminal records follow different reporting rules.
The FCRA also requires CRAs to use reasonable procedures to ensure the accuracy of the information they report (15 U.S. Code section 1681e(b)).4U.S. House of Representatives Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 15 USC 1681e: Compliance Procedures This includes verifying the status of orders (e.g., temporary vs. final, active vs. expired) and reporting them correctly. Reporting an expired or dismissed order without noting its final status could violate this accuracy requirement.
While the FCRA sets federal standards, some state laws might further restrict what CRAs can report. Importantly, these FCRA rules apply specifically to reports from CRAs. An employer or landlord conducting their own direct search of public court records might still find an older restraining order if the record remains publicly available and hasn’t been sealed or expunged.
Third-Party Data Aggregators
Beyond formal background checks, information about restraining orders can surface through third-party data aggregators, or data brokers. These companies collect vast amounts of data from numerous public sources, including court records unless sealed or expunged, package it, and often sell it or make it available online. They use methods like automated web scraping of court websites and bulk data purchases. Details about restraining orders, such as party names and case outcomes, can be gathered alongside other public data like property or voter records.
This aggregated information frequently appears on people-search websites or is used for commercial purposes like marketing. As a result, a casual online search might reveal the existence of a restraining order, separate from official court searches or regulated background checks, making this public information potentially more visible than expected.
A significant issue with data held by aggregators is the potential for inaccuracy or outdated information. Their databases might not reflect the most current status of a court case, such as showing a temporary order that was later dismissed. Unlike official court records, data broker information may lack context or completeness. While some strive for accuracy, errors can occur due to the volume of data and diverse sources. The Federal Trade Commission has highlighted concerns about data broker practices, but the regulation regarding accuracy, especially outside specific uses like credit reporting, is still developing.5Federal Trade Commission. FTC Recommends Congress Require Data Broker Industry To Be More Transparent Information about a restraining order found via an aggregator may not be entirely reliable or current.
