re:SearchIL integration

How our re:SearchIL integration works

Since 1999 Judici.com has been providing remote access services for the 75+ courts which use Goodin Associates' PC JIMS CMS.  It also enables other e-government integrations such e-plea/a-pay, e-citation and collections. 

In 2018 when the state mandated re:SearchIL for statewide remote access, Judici created new CMS interface (CMSI) services which keep re:SearchIL in the loop and handle document requests as follows:
  1. Notify re:SearchIL every time a case has an added/changed/deleted document/attorney/party, as well as any changes to the security of a document or case.
    1. This includes all documents produced at the court, so Clerk and judicial staff do not have to e-file orders, notices, etc. for them to be in re:SearchIL.
  2. re:SearchIL then runs a GetCase query to ask Judici for an update on the case, and Judici returns a list of all of the current documents/attorneys/parties.
    1. Just as with Judici's interfaces with our 75+ courts, this approach effectively makes the data "self-healing"- if re:Search is missing a document... or has the wrong case/document security status, it will be fixed the next time a case is changed as described above.
  3. If a user then asks for a document from the list, re:SearchIL gets it “fresh” from Judici. Aside from short-term cached copies, re:SearchIL doesn't keep copies of documents.

Scope

The initial mandate for re:SearchIL was limited to civil cases. As of 6/13/2019, that's all our integration communicates to them. Whenever the AOIC puts out the new Remote Access Policy, this may well change.

Troubleshooting

    1. Can't see docs on cases never e-filed on. Note 6/13/2019: Tyler now picks up new cases which are created manually at the court and sent to them via our re:SearchIL integration


How to get help with re:SearchIL


Tyler has advised that user issues from attorney, judges, Clerk staff etc. should be handled using the support resources available right on the re:SearchIL website.

Issues regarding court data security/confidentiality

Comments