This week's STAC 3 Collaboration meeting focused primarily on protected case security, including how agencies can restrict access to high-profile cases without disrupting e-filing or daily operations. The group discussed several possible approaches, including user-specific access lists, protected case messaging, and alternate search functionality for reception and public records staff. 

The meeting also included updates on RC7 usability enhancements, including major improvements to dropdown functionality, discussion of request search limitations, interface design improvements, and several bugs identified by participating agencies. 

Protected Case Security Discussion 

Continued the discussion from previous Collaboration meetings regarding agencies' need to protect high-profile cases from general office access while still allowing authorized personnel to perform their duties. 

Current Business Need 

Several agencies explained that they occasionally have cases where only a handful of individuals should have access due to: 

The goal is to prevent unauthorized staff from viewing any portion of the case, including: 

rather than simply protecting evidence or images alone. 

Security Must Be Configurable Per Case 

SA15 explained that these situations are rare but each case typically requires a different group of authorized users. 

For example: 

Therefore, a single security group or protected case type may not adequately solve the problem since access needs vary from case to case. 

Proposed Case-Level Security Tab 

CIP proposed what may become the most flexible solution: 

Create a dedicated Security tab on the case where authorized users could be listed individually. 

Only users listed on this tab would have access to the protected case. 

Participants generally agreed this approach would address many of their confidentiality concerns while allowing security to be managed on a case-by-case basis. 

Existing Case Type Solution 

SA05 explained that they currently use special case types (such as wiretap cases) combined with security groups to restrict access. 

However, a user explained that SA15 previously attempted this approach but encountered e-filing issues because changing the case type affected how the clerk's information was handled. 

E-Filing Clarification 

CIP clarified that e-filing depends on: 

—not the internal STAC Case Type. 

explained that agencies can configure protected case types while maintaining the original Clerk Number, allowing e-filing to function properly without repeatedly changing the case type back and forth. 

For SA15, this configuration would largely solve their current operational problem. 

Receptionist and Public Records Concerns 

SA12 raised an operational concern. 

If a receptionist searches for a restricted case and simply receives no results, they may incorrectly tell a caller that no case exists. 

Instead, she suggested the system display a message such as: 

"This is a restricted case. Please contact the assigned attorney." 

This would allow staff to know the case exists without exposing confidential information. 

Alternate Search Screen Idea 

CIP suggested another possible solution: 

Rather than modifying every search screen throughout STAC, create a dedicated search screen for reception or public records staff that would: 

This approach could satisfy operational needs while maintaining security. 

Daily Priorities 

Although everyone agreed the protected case project is important, Wlad recommended prioritizing completion of RC7 usability improvements and bug fixes first. 

He emphasized that protected case security has existed as a request for many years, whereas current usability improvements affect users every day. 

The group agreed with this prioritization while continuing to develop the protected case concept. 

RC7 Usability Improvements 

Wlad provided an update on RC7 development. 

Several user-requested improvements are currently being implemented, including: 

He noted that many of these changes directly address concerns raised during recent Collaboration meetings. 

Transcript AI Upgrade 

SA15 requested an update regarding AI-generated transcript improvements. 

CIP explained that the team is currently evaluating newer transcription models available through Microsoft while also considering government security requirements. 

Testing currently includes recordings with: 

to better evaluate real-world performance.  

Multi-Code Dropdown Bug 

SA08 demonstrated a bug involving the Multi-Code selection field. 

Current behavior: 

CIP confirmed this appears to be a bug and stated it will be addressed, asked if he could send a ticket.

Request Search Screen Discussion 

SA12 demonstrated limitations within the Request Search screen. 

Currently, users must separately search: 

There is no straightforward method to retrieve both simultaneously within one search. 

Additionally, leaving the status blank appears to default to Active Requests rather than returning all requests, creating confusion. 

Development Discussion 

CIP explained that limiting searches helps prevent extremely large database queries. 

However, Wlad agreed that the current interface is misleading because it presents a blank option while still defaulting to Active. 

He characterized this as a bug that should be corrected and asked for a ticket so the issue can be addressed and tracked.

Search Screen Layout Improvements 

SA12 suggested that many STAC search screens would benefit from collapsible search criteria sections. 

Current issue: 

Large search panels reduce available space for viewing results, particularly for users utilizing larger display settings. 

Wlad agreed this is a longstanding design issue and stated that collapsible search panels should be considered across multiple search screens, not just Requests. Requested a ticket be sent in to track the issue. 

Filed Event Deletion Issue 

SA12 reported an issue involving deletion of Filed events while attempting to return a case to an earlier stage. 

Wlad explained that Filed, Disposition, Sentence, and Reopen events follow a required sequence and normally must be removed in order. 

However, after hearing the specifics, he concluded the behavior appears unique to that particular case rather than representing a system-wide issue.