Idaho Court Administrative Rules

Idaho Court Administrative Rule 1. Practice of Law by Magistrate Judge Prohibited.

(a) A magistrate judge, whether full or part-time, must not directly or indirectly practice law.

(b) A magistrate judge must not be a member or associated with a law firm, professional association, corporation, or other organization engaged in the practice of law.

(c) A magistrate judge must not engage in any activity that will conflict with their duties as a magistrate judge.

(Adopted December 27, 1979, effective July 1, 1980; Amended June 30, 2025, effective July 1, 2025.)

Idaho Court Administrative Rule 2. Removal of Magistrate Judge Without Cause.

(a) Statement of Intent. This rule is adopted under Idaho Code § 1-2207(3) to govern a magistrates commission’s removal of a magistrate judge during their first 18 months in office.

(1) Application. The rule applies to a magistrate judge who is subject to a personnel review meeting or removal proceeding.

(2) Administrative proceeding. Removal under this rule is an administrative personnel proceeding. It is not adversarial or judicial in nature. The Idaho Rules of Evidence do not apply.

(3) Information gathering. This rule does not limit a magistrates commission's ability to gather information.

(b) Time and method of removal. A magistrates commission may remove a magistrate judge within 18 months of appointing them. Removal requires a majority vote of the voting members.

(c) Grounds for removal. A magistrate judge may be removed under this rule without cause or statement of the reason.

(d) Personnel review meeting. A magistrates commission must shall hold a personnel review meeting to determine if a removal hearing should be held.

(1) Who can call. The personnel review meeting may be called by:

(A) the administrative district judge (ADJ);

(B) ADJ's designee; or

(C) on written request of three magistrates commission members to the ADJ.

(2) Meeting notice.

(A) The magistrates commission members must receive reasonable notice.

(B) The magistrate judge does not have to receive notice of the personnel review meeting.

(3) Removal hearing. The magistrates commission must set a removal hearing at the demand of three voting members.

(e) Notice of removal hearing. A magistrate judge may be removed at a regular or special magistrates commission meeting.

(1) Who must receive notice. Magistrates commission members and the magistrate judge must receive at least 14 days written notice of the removal hearing.

(2) How notices served.

(A) Notice to magistrate judge. The magistrate judge must receive notice by personal service or as prescribed by the ADJ. Proof of service must be lodged with the ADJ.

(B) Notice to magistrates commission members. Notice to magistrates commission members must be served by regular mail or personal delivery.

(3) Content of notice.

(A) Magistrate judge notice. The notice must provide that a purpose of the meeting is to consider the magistrate judge’s removal under Idaho Code §1-2207, and that the magistrate judge may attend those parts of the meeting as permitted by the magistrates commission.

(B) Magistrates commission notice. Notice to the members of the magistrates commission must:

(i) inform the member that a purpose of the meeting is to consider the removal of the magistrate judge; and

(ii) that the magistrate judge can only be removed by a majority vote of the voting members of the magistrates commission.

(4) Procedure. The magistrates commission may permit the magistrate judge to testify and produce evidence. Procedural conduct of the meeting must be determined by a majority vote of the voting members present at the removal hearing.

(f) Confidentiality.

(1) Proceedings for the removal of a magistrate judge must be closed to the public and kept confidential.

(2) Records from removal proceeding are confidential and exempt from public disclosure as provided in Idaho Court Administrative Rule 32(d).

(g) Subpoena power. Subpoenas cannot be used for proceedings under this rule.

(h) Order of removal.

(1) In general. If a magistrates commission decides to remove a magistrate judge, it must:

(A) issue a written order of removal, signed by the chair of the magistrates commission, that provides the termination is effective immediately;

(B) have the order personally served on the magistrate judge or sent by certified mail to the magistrate's judge’s judicial chambers or home address; and

(C) file the order with the clerk of the district court.

(2) The ADJ must have the order mailed to the Administrative Office of the Courts.

(i) Removal for cause. This rule does not prevent the Judicial Council or the Idaho Supreme Court from removing a magistrate judge for cause under Idaho Code § 1-2103A.

(Adopted December 27, 1979, effective July 1, 1980; amended May 1, 1990, effective July 1, 1990; amended June 14, 1999, effective September 1, 1999; Amended June 30, 2025, effective July 1, 2025.)

The Idaho Supreme Court may discipline or remove a magistrate judge at the recommendation of the Judicial Council under Idaho Code § Section 1-2103A. 

(Adopted May 1, 1990, effective July 1, 1990; amended June 30, 2025, effective July 1, 2025.)

Idaho Court Administrative Rule 4. Pro Tempore Trial Judge By Agreement.

(a) Judge tempore requirements. A civil action between private parties in the district court, or magistrates division of the district court, may be tried to a judge pro tempore. The authority for a judge tempore is at Idaho Const. art. 5, § 12. A judge pro tempore must:

(1) be a member of the Idaho State Bar in good standing;

(2) meet the other constitutional and statutory qualifications for a district judge or magistrate judge; and

(3) be agreed to in writing by the parties or their attorneys of record.

(b) Administrative District Judge discretion. The administrative district judge (ADJ) of a judicial district has the discretion to approve a judge pro tempore. The agreement to retain a judge pro tempore must be presented to the ADJ for approval.

(1) If the ADJ agrees to the appointment, they will appoint the person designated in the agreement to become a judge pro tempore to hear and determine all contested matters in the case as a trial judge. The appointment is effective on the execution and filing of the oath required under Idaho Code § 59-401. The agreement, order, and oath must be filed in the action.

(2) If the ADJ declines to approve the agreement, they must enter an order stating the reasons for their decision.

(c) Authority of Judge Pro Tempore. A judge pro tempore has the powers and duties of a judge while presiding over an action as a trial judge. But a judge pro tempore does not have the authority to hear appeals or to exercise the inherent powers of the court. This includes the power to sanction for contempt and mandamus. Matters involving the inherent powers of the court must be referred to the ADJ.

(d) Hearings and Trials.

(1) Conduct. The judge pro tempore must conduct hearings and trials as required by the statutes and rules governing court proceedings.

(2) Location. A hearing or trial may be conducted at a place other than a regular court room on written agreement of the parties and approval of the judge pro tempore. The place of hearing or trial shall be provided by the parties and at their expense.

(e) Records and Files. The judge pro tempore must maintain the case file and records in the same manner as in the district court. The judge pro tempore must file all papers as required by Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure 5(e). At the conclusion of the action the judge pro tempore must deposit all records and files in the action with the court clerk. If an action is appealed, the judge pro tempore must settle the record.

(f) Record of Proceedings. If the parties agree in writing and the judge pro tempore approves, they may waive the reporting or recording of any part of the proceedings or testimony as permitted under Idaho Code § 1-1103. If the parties desire a record they must arrange and pay for it.

(g) Reassignment of Case. A judge pro tempore may be removed by the ADJ for the same cause that a district judge or magistrate judge may be removed. The ADJ must reassign the action to a district judge or magistrate judge:

(1) on written request of the parties;

(2) on written request of the judge tempore; or

(3) on the death or disability of the judge pro tempore.

(h) Compensation. The parties and judge pro tempore must enter into a written agreement which provides for the compensation to be paid to the judge pro tempore. The agreement must provide:

(1) the judge pro tempore’s compensation;

(2) that the parties will pay the judge pro tempore; or

(3) that the judge pro tempore is an independent contractor and not a court agent or employee.

(i) Effect of Orders and Judgments. Orders and judgments entered by the judge pro tempore, or under the judge pro tempore’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, have the same binding effect as a decision or judgment of a district judge or magistrate judge. Orders and judgments of the judge pro tempore are subject to enforcement and appeal as is an order or judgment of a district judge or magistrate judge.

(Adopted April 14, 1993, effective July 1, 1993; Amended June 30, 2025, effective July 1, 2025.)

Idaho Court Administrative Rule 5. Civil Jurisdiction of Magistrates; Assignment of Cases.

 (a) Jurisdiction; Assignment by Order.  Jurisdiction of magistrates is the same as that of district judges but assignment of cases to magistrates must be approved by order of a majority of the district judges in the district.  The order of the district  judges stating the assignment of cases to magistrates must be posted in a conspicuous place in the clerk's office in each county in the district and published in the Idaho State Bar Desk Book.

(b) Assignment Pursuant to Idaho Code Section 1-2208.  Assignment of cases to magistrates may be granted pursuant to Idaho Code Section 1-2208, as follows:

1. All of the matters and actions designated in Idaho Code Section 1-2208, including any proceeding under title 66, chapter 3, Idaho Code relating to the hospitalization of the mentally ill or title 66, chapter 4, Idaho Code, relating to the care of the developmentally disabled;

2.  Proceedings under the Child Protective Act, title 16, chapter 16, Idaho Code , and the Safe Haven Act, title 39, chapter 82, Idaho Code;

3.  Proceedings under the Juvenile Corrections Act, title 20, chapter 5, Idaho Code;

4.  Proceedings under the Termination of Parent-Child Relationship Act, title 16, chapter 20, Idaho Code;

5.  All proceedings under Idaho Code Section 18-8002 to determine whether a person refused to take an evidentiary test for concentration of alcohol, drugs or other intoxicating substances when properly requested by a police officer.

(c) Assignment Pursuant to Idaho Code Section 1-2210.  Additional cases may be assigned to magistrates pursuant to Idaho Code Section 1-2210 when approved by the administrative district judge of a judicial district.  The additional cases assigned to magistrates may include:

1. Civil actions regardless of the nature of the action, where the amount of damages or value of the property claimed does not exceed $10,000;

2. All proceedings involving the custody of minors incidental to divorce proceedings, all adoption proceedings pursuant to title 16, chapter 15, Idaho Code, all paternity proceedings, and all actions for change of name;

3.  All proceedings for divorce, separate maintenance or annulment, including orders to show cause, hearings and issuance of restraining orders; including all child support and maintenance proceedings pursuant to title 32, chapter 7, Idaho Code; and proceedings pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, title 32, chapter 11, Idaho Code;

4.   All habeas corpus proceedings regardless of the nature or origin, including all habeas corpus proceedings involved in a criminal proceeding or conviction.

(Adopted December 2, 2015, effective July 1, 2016; amended September 9, 2016, effective September 9, 2016; amended December 14, 2017, effective January 1, 2018.)

Idaho Court Administrative Rule 5.1.  Criminal Jurisdiction of Magistrate Judges; Assignment of Cases.

     (a) Cases Assignable to All Magistrate Judges. The following criminal proceedings may be assigned to a magistrate judge under Idaho Code § 1-2208:

          (1) arraignment, trial and sentencing in a misdemeanor;

          (2) proceedings pertaining to warrants for arrest or for searches and seizures;

          (3) initial appearance and setting of bail in a misdemeanor or felony proceeding; and 

  (4) the preliminary examination for a felony to determine probable cause and commitment before trial.

     (b) Assignment of Additional Cases to Magistrate Judge. The following cases may be assigned to a magistrate judge if approved by their administrative district judge (ADJ):

          (1) trial, related hearings, and sentencing in a felony after:

(i) an application by the ADJ; and

(ii) a Supreme Court order approving the assignment. 

          (2) extradition proceedings;

          (3) proceedings regarding fugitives from justice; and

          (4) the performance of a function of a United States magistrate judge when requested by federal authorities or courts. This assignment requires:

(i) an ADJ order recommending the assignment; and 

(ii) a Supreme Court order approving the assignment. 

     (c) Objection to Assignment of a Magistrate Judge.  

(1) Types of Objections. Objections may be made to:

(A) an irregularity in the method or scope of assignment of a criminal proceeding or action to a magistrate under this rule and Idaho Code §§ 1-2208 and 1-2210; or 

(B) to the propriety of a proceeding to a magistrate judge.  

(2) When objections must be made. Written objections must be made no later than 7 days after a notice setting the proceeding or action for trial, pre-trial, or hearing on a contested motion and before any contested matter has been submitted to the court for decision. 

(3) Improper assignment. No order or judgment is void or subject to collateral attack because a magistrate judge was improperly assigned to a proceeding. 

 
     (d) Special Assignment to Attorney Magistrate Judge.  The ADJ may order the appointment of an attorney magistrate judge to hear and try one or more proceedings or actions that are otherwise triable by a district judge. The magistrate judge must have the parties served with notice of the assignment.

(Adopted March 24, 2017; effective July 1, 2017; amended August 1, 2025, effective August 1, 2025.)

Idaho Court Administrative Rule 6. Special Assignment to Magistrate Judge.

An administrative district judge may order the appointment of a magistrate judge to hear and try one or more specific actions that are otherwise triable by a district judge. The clerk of the district court must have the parties served with notice of the assignment. 

(Adopted December 2, 2015, effective July 1, 2016; amended September 9, 2016, effective September 9, 2016; amended August 1, 2025, effective August 1, 2025.)

Idaho Court Administrative Rule 7. Enlargement of Cases Assignable to Magistrate Judges.

(a)    Civil Cases. An administrative district judge (ADJ) may enlarge the civil cases assignable to magistrate judges under Idaho Court Administrative Rule (I.C.A.R.) 5(c). The order may include: 

(1) magistrate judges in the judicial district;

(2) magistrate judges in a county in the judicial district; or

(3) specific magistrate judges in the judicial district.

(b)    Criminal Cases. An ADJ may enlarge the criminal cases assignable to magistrate judges under I.C.A.R. 5.1. The order may include:

(1) magistrate judges in the judicial district;

(2) magistrate judges in a county in the judicial district; or 

(3) specific magistrate judges in the judicial district.
 

(Adopted December 2, 2015, effective July 1, 2016; amended September 9, 2016, effective September 9, 2016; amended on March 24, 2017, effective July 1, 2017; amended December 14, 2017, effective January 1, 2018; amended August 1, 2025, effective August 1, 2025.)

Idaho Court Administrative Rule 8. Transfer.

In an action brought in the magistrate division of the district court, in the event the claim, counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party claim tendered for filing is in excess of the jurisdictional amount or otherwise beyond the jurisdiction of the court, upon the payment of any fees required by statute, or rule, the action shall be transferred to the district court of the county in which pending to be there considered and tried as if the same had been there originally filed.

(Adopted December 2, 2015, effective July 1, 2016.)

If a district judge or magistrate collects a fee for performing a marriage as provided in section 32-307, Idaho Code, the judge or magistrate shall remit five dollars ($5.00) of such fee to the state treasurer pursuant to sections 59-1010 and 59-1014, Idaho Code. 

(Adopted December 27, 1979, effective July 1, 1980; amended July 29, 2003, effective August 1, 2003.)

No person shall receive appointment as a district court reporter unless such person is a regularly certified shorthand reporter as defined in the Idaho Certified Shorthand Reporters Act, section 54-3101, Idaho Code, et seq.;  provided, however, that a person may be appointed as a state district court reporter on a temporary basis upon condition that such reporter must make application for regular certification under the Certified Shorthand Reporters Act within thirty (30) days of such appointment, and if the reporter fails to obtain regular certification as a certified shorthand reporter by the second subsequent consecutive examination date by reason of the reporter's failure to pass the necessary examination, or otherwise, then such person shall be removed as a district court reporter and shall not be eligible for reappointment until the person obtains a regular certificate as a certified shorthand reporter, pursuant to section 54-3104, Idaho Code. 

(Adopted December 27, 1979, effective July 1, 1980; amended December 13, 2006, effective March 1, 2007.)

Upon the request of a district judge, or the administrative director of the courts, or on its own motion, the Supreme Court may require that a state district court reporter appointed on a temporary basis in accordance with section 54-3104, Idaho Code, be required to pass a special examination to be administered by the Certified Shorthand Reporters Board in order to continue in said appointment on a temporary basis. Any such special examination shall not be held pursuant to the Idaho Certified Shorthand Reporters Act, but shall be held pursuant to the authority of the Supreme Court to establish such additional conditions for appointments as it may choose to prescribe, and shall be subject only to notice of the time and place of the special examination at least fifteen (15) days in advance of the date set for the examination to the person taking said examination. Said special examination shall be similar in form and content to the regular examinations held by the Certified Shorthand Reporters Board, pursuant to section 54-3111, Idaho Code, and the preparation, administration and grading of the examination shall be governed by rules prescribed by the board. Upon determining the results of the examination, the board shall notify the examinee and the administrative director of the courts as to whether the examinee has passed or failed the examination. Any state district court reporter appointed on a temporary basis who fails to pass the special examination required by the Supreme Court shall be removed as a district court reporter and shall not be eligible for re-appointment on a permanent or temporary basis, until such person obtains a regular certificate as a certified shorthand reporter pursuant to the Idaho Certified Shorthand Reporters Act. 

(Adopted December 27, 1979, effective July 1, 1980.)

(a) Return of information. If a district court reporter is removed for failing a necessary or special examination, or ends their employment, they must immediately transfer to the trial court administrator all: 

(1) notes;

(2) files;

(3) records; and

(4) information concerning any cases, motions or other matters in which they took part as a district court reporter. 

(b) Liability. All notes, records, files and other information developed in connection with the district court reporter’s duties are the property of the district court. The removed reporter is personally liable for any loss or destruction of the notes, files, records or information.

(c) Transcript re-assignment. If the preparation of a transcript is reassigned to another reporter, the removed reporter must immediately transfer all notes, files and records concerning the matter to be transcribed to the trial court administrator.

(Adopted December 27, 1979, effective July 1, 1980; amended January 3, 2008, effective March 1, 2008; amended August 1, 2025, effective August 1, 2025.)

(a) Compensation. In appointing a substitute or deputy court reporter to act in the place of the regular reporter during absence, sickness, or other disability, pursuant to section 1-1108, Idaho Code, in order to obtain state financial reimbursements for compensation or expenses of such substitute or deputy court reporter, the appointing court shall notify and obtain the approval of the administrative director of the courts prior to any employment for which compensation is sought; provided, however, that the administrative director of the courts may approve state compensation or expense payment after employment, if the appointing court was unable to obtain prior approval due to exigent circumstances. 

(b) Manner of appointment. The court appointing a temporary or deputy court reporter pursuant to section 1-1108, Idaho Code, shall enter an order stating the reason for such appointment, and shall forward a copy of the order of appointment to the administrative director of the courts. 

(c) Amount of compensation. The amount of state financial compensation and expenses for reimbursement of temporary or deputy court reporters appointed pursuant to this rule shall be established by the administrative director of the courts, subject to regulations of the state of Idaho for travel and subsistence. 

(d) Requests for payment. Persons requesting payment for work as substitute for deputy court reporters appointed pursuant to this rule shall submit a daily log of the number of hours worked along with a state voucher for payment for services and expenses to the administrative director of the courts. Such voucher shall contain the signature of approval of the judge or court administrator for whom such work was undertaken. 

(Adopted December 27, 1979, effective July 1, 1980.)

(a)  Verbatim Record. The court in the magistrate's division shall make a verbatim record or recording of all proceedings held before a magistrate.

(b)  Qualification of reporters, filing reporter notes or tapes. If a party furnishes a stenographic reporter as provided for in section 1-2212, Idaho Code, such reporter, at a minimum, shall be experienced in adversary courtroom proceedings and be certified by the presiding magistrate to report such proceedings. Said reporter's notes or electronic recording tapes shall be filed with the clerk and be thus available for appeal or other purposes. Said reporter by accepting the reporting assignment submits to the jurisdiction of the court in any subsequent order for a transcription of said notes at the rate agreed upon at the time of the hearing. 

(c)  Logs of tapes, or recordings. A log sheet shall be maintained by the operator of the electronic recording device, which shall accompany the record of the proceedings. Such log shall set forth all the essential events that take place in court. The log shall act as an index of such events by referring to the recording medium to identify speakers, direct and cross-examinations, objections, motions and other significant actions that transpire. 

(d)  Form of log sheet. The log sheet shall be prepared substantially in the following form: 

Click here for form.

(e)  Recording medium. The reels of tape or other such media together with the box in which it is stored shall be labeled by the operator showing the name of the court, the judge or magistrate thereof, and the inclusive dates when the tape was recorded. It shall be the responsibility of the clerk of the district court to have available an adequate supply of tapes or other recording media for immediate use.

(f)  Storage of tapes or other recording media. Under supervision of the administrative district judge, or his designee, the clerk of the district court shall be responsible for the storage of the tapes or other media and log sheets to prevent tampering with, loss or damage.

(g)  Transcripts. Transcripts shall be prepared as directed herein and in accordance with these rules. The transcripts must be neat and free from error. The transcriber must not guess as to the spoken word, but shall replay the recording until the exact meaning is understood. If the exact meaning is still indiscernible, the transcriber must indicate such fact on the transcript. The exact meaning must then be settled as provided in the Idaho Criminal Rules, the Idaho Rules for Civil Procedure, or the Idaho Appellate Rules. 

(a) Expenses for facilities and supplies used by court reporters in performing their official court reporter duties are the responsibility of the county. In addition, it is recommended that the following be supplied by the county: 

Stenograph paper 

Ink and ribbons 

Maintenance on steno writers, including support contracts

Typewriter (if needed) 

Office furniture 

Computer disks 

Audio Tapes 

Online storage of stenographic notes and transcripts

Office Space (If the county does not have office space available in the courthouse for the court reporters to work, the Administrative District Judge or designee may authorize the court reporters to work out of their home.) And any other supplies for making the record in the court room. 

(b) Expenses for supplies used by court reporters when charging fees under Idaho Code §1-1105(2) is the responsibility of the court reporter. In addition, it is recommended that the following be supplied by the court reporters: 

Hardware 

Software support 

Binding equipment 

Paper 

Toner 

Copy costs 

(If there is no commercial establishment to reproduce transcripts in the city where the trial or hearing is held, then the court reporter shall be allowed to use the copiers of the county and pay the actual costs of such copying.) And any other supplies for making the official transcripts.

(a) District court reporter, attendance required.  A court reporter certified in accordance with Rule 21, I.C.A.R., shall attend all civil trials, hearings on dispositive motions, criminal trials, arraignments, plea hearings, evidentiary suppression hearings, and sentence hearings in the district court, unless such attendance is waived in open court or by a written stipulation signed by the parties, or their counsel of record, and approved by the presiding district judge. The court reporter shall make a shorthand or machine shorthand verbatim record of all oral communications made during such trials or hearings in the presence of the presiding district judge, including communications by all parties, counsel, witnesses, jurors and the judge, except when not feasible during sidebar conferences.

(b) District court reporter, attendance not required.  At the discretion of the presiding district judge, civil or criminal hearings that are not specified in paragraph (a) of this rule may be electronically recorded in lieu of steno-graphic means.  When recording is by electronic means, a deputy clerk of court must be present during the hearing, and must be operating a fully functional electronic recording machine that is electronically recording all oral communications made in the presence of the presiding district judge, including communications of the parties, counsel, witnesses and the judge.

(c) Electronic recording.  An electronic recording shall be made of all courtroom proceedings, regardless of whether a court reporter is also reporting the proceedings by stenographic means. Only if a court reporter is present may the court, for good cause, elect to proceed without an electronic recording.  Electronic recordings of district court proceedings are the property of the court and shall be indexed and stored by the clerk of the district court for the period of time specified in rules 37 and 38 of the Idaho Court Administrative Rules. 

(d) Official transcripts.  When a court reporter stenographically reports court proceedings, the court reporter's certified transcript shall be the official transcript of the proceedings.  If a court reporter has not reported a district court proceeding, a transcript or partial transcript prepared from the electronic recording of the proceeding becomes the official transcript of the proceeding for all purposes if it is prepared by the district court reporter or a transcriber under the control or supervision of the district court clerk and the transcriber executes a certificate of transcription attesting to its accuracy in the form prescribed by rule 83(g), I.R.C.P.

(1) Realtime transcripts. A realtime transcript is not an official transcript as defined under subsection (d) of this rule. Realtime services may be used for interpretive purposes, but cannot be cited to or used in any way as an official transcript.

(2) Electronic recording. An electronic recording is not an official transcript as defined under subsection (d) of this rule and cannot be cited to or used in any way as an official transcript.

(e) Use of official transcripts of district court proceedings.  In all case where a party desires to place in evidence a transcript or partial transcript of a district court proceeding, or disclose the contents of a transcript during the examination of a witness, the transcript must be an official transcript as provided in subsection (d) of this rule.

(f) Estimate of Reporter's Fees - Filing. Upon the conclusion of any trial in the district court, or proceeding in an administrative agency, the reporter shall estimate the cost of preparing a transcript of the trial or proceeding and shall certify the amount thereof in writing which shall be delivered to the clerk and filed in the file of the action or proceeding. In the event the reporter fails to so estimate the fees for a transcript within two (2) days from the conclusion of the trial or proceed the estimated fees for preparation of the transcript shall be deemed to be the sum of $200.00, unless the reporter shall thereafter file the reporter's estimated fees before the filing of a notice of appeal; provided, the reporter's estimated fee may be included in the minute entry of the hearing or proceeding or stamped or endorsed thereon.

(g) Request for official transcript. A request for an official transcript of a district court proceeding under this rule must be in writing, submitted to the court reporter or clerk of the district court, and provide substantially the following information: date of request; the proceeding, or portion thereof, to be transcribed; whether the requestor desires that the transcript be expedited; and the requested completion date. The transcriber shall notify the person requesting the transcript of the estimated date of its completion and the fee. Unless other arrangements are made with the approval of the district court reporter or district court clerk, the transcriber's fee shall be paid in full before delivery of the transcript to the person requesting it. Compliance with deadlines for the preparation of transcripts of proceedings for an appeal takes precedence over the preparation of transcripts made for any other purpose.

(h) Emergency assistance. 

(1) Unanticipated absence of a court reporter. In situations where a court reporter is not available due an unanticipated absence such as death, illness, or temporary absence of a court reporter, and after a good faith effort a replacement cannot be found, the presiding judge may, with or without a stipulation of the parties or their counsel of record, order the recording of any proceedings listed in paragraph (a) to be by electronic recording as the official court record until such time as the unanticipated absence has passed.

(2) Anticipated absence of a court reporter. In those situations where a court reporter is not available due to an anticipated absence, including a vacancy in a court reporter position which has not been staffed pursuant to I.C. Section 1-1101, the Administrative District Judge of the affected judicial district by written Administrative Order, may suspend application of paragraph (a) and (h)(1) of this rule and order the recording of any or all proceedings listed in paragraph (a) to be by an electronic recording in accordance with paragraph (c) as the official court record until such time as the court reporter absence or vacancy has passed.

(i) Office location and attendance. District court reporters shall be available during regular office hours. The administrative district judge or designee may authorize a court reporter to work from an alternate location during regular office hours, provided the court reporter is available for court proceedings and may be contacted via a telephone or a call- in system approved by the administrative district judge to report to court.

(Amended March 15, 2004, effective July 1, 2004; amended January 3, 2008, effective March 1, 2008; amnded March 29, 2010, effective May 1, 2010; amended September 9, 2016, effective September 9, 2016.)

District judges are responsible for the direct supervision of their court reporters, including any reporter assigned to the judge for a particular proceeding, and ensuring adherence to the time standards adopted by the Supreme Court for the filing of appellate transcripts.

(Adopted January 3, 2008, effective March 1, 2008)

(a) The reporter of any trial or proceedings shall prepare and lodge with the district court or with the administrative agency the requested transcript within the time limits set out in Idaho Appellate Rule 24. If the reporter is unable to meet this deadline an extension of time must be requested from the Idaho Supreme Court. An extension of time for the preparation and lodging of the transcript may be obtained by filing a motion for extension of time with the Idaho Supreme Court at least five days before the transcript is due unless good cause is shown for the failure to timely file a motion.

(b) In the event a transcript is 14 days past due, the clerk of the Idaho Supreme Court shall notify the court reporter, trial court administrator, administrative district judge and district judge responsible for supervising the reporter, and the trial court administrator shall take appropriate action which may include (a) imposing disciplinary action, (b) identifying another official reporter in the district who can provide coverage for court proceedings while the transcript is completed, (c) implementing a performance improvement plan that requires weekend and evening hours to complete the transcript(s), (d) identifying a different court reporter who will complete the transcript and be compensated as appropriate, or (e) with approval of the Administrative Director of the Courts, removing the court reporter from the courtroom until the transcript is complete and hiring a different court reporter to provide coverage for court proceedings. In the event a transcript is reassigned to a free lance court reporter, the court reporter must immediately turn over all notes of the particular proceeding to the trial court administrator. The trial court administrator shall notify the clerk of the Supreme Court of the action taken regarding the transcript, including the anticipated date of filing and any reassignment.

(c) The Supreme Court retains the inherent and overriding authority to remove and /or discipline any district court reporter or order the reassignment of preparation of a transcript as may be required for the management of court operations or in the interests of justice.

(Adopted January 3, 2008, effective March 1, 2008)

The clerk of the district court shall keep records of civil and criminal actions, each to be known as a "Register of Actions," of a suitable form and style, with indexes, and such other records and systems as prescribed by the administrative director of the courts pursuant to section 1-614, Idaho Code. Provided, no entry in the Register of Actions is required for Idaho Uniform Citations for traffic violations, which are classified as infractions in the Idaho Traffic Infractions Act, or other infractions, or misdemeanor charges filed on Idaho Uniform Citations for which there is a plea of guilty at first appearance, in the magistrates division and the "docket" on the citation shall be the only record required for the citation which shall be preserved or may be destroyed as provided in Rule 38(c) of these rules. The file number of each action shall be noted consecutively in the register of actions wherein the first entry of the action is made. All papers filed or lodged with the clerk, all process issued and returns made thereon, all appearances, orders, verdicts and judgments, including writs of executions and satisfactions of judgments, shall be noted chronologically. These notations shall be brief but shall show the nature of each paper filed or writ issued and the substance of each order or judgment of the court and the returns showing execution of process. The notation of an order or judgment shall show the date of entry of the order or judgment. When trial by jury has been demanded or ordered the clerk shall enter a proper notation of the request for jury trial. 

(Adopted December 27, 1979, effective July 1, 1980; amended March 24, 1982, effective July 1, 1982; amended April 13, 1982, effective July 1, 1982; amended June 15, 1987, effective November 1, 1987; amended March 23, 1990, effective July 1, 1990.)

(a) Statement of policy.  This rule is adopted pursuant to the Supreme Court's authority to control access to court records, as recognized in the Idaho Public Records Act, I.C. § 74-104.  The public has a right to access the judicial department's declarations of law and public policy, and to access the records of all proceedings open to the public.  This rule provides for access in a manner that: 

(1) Promotes accessibility to court records;

(2) Supports the role of the judiciary;

(3) Promotes governmental accountability;

(4) Contributes to public safety;

(5) Minimizes the risk of injury to individuals;

(6) Protects individual privacy rights and interests;

(7) Protects proprietary business information;

(8) Minimizes reluctance to use the court system;

(9) Makes the most effective use of court and clerk of court staff;

(10) Provides excellent customer service; and 

(11) Avoids unduly burdening the ongoing business of the judiciary.

In the event of any conflict this rule shall prevail over any other rule on the issue of access to judicial records.

(b)  Definitions:  As used in this Rule: 

(1) "Custodian" means the person defined in paragraph (k)(2) of this Rule. 

(2) "Custodian judge" means the Justice, Judge or Magistrate defined in paragraph (k)(3) of this Rule. 

(3) "Personnel" means justices, judges, magistrates, trial court administrators, clerks of the district court and staff of a court.

(4) "Court record" includes:

(A) Any document, information or other thing that is filed, docketed, or lodged by a court or clerk of court in connection with a judicial proceeding;

(B) Any index, calendar, docket, register of actions, official record of the proceedings, order, decree, judgment, minute, and any information in an automated case management system created by or prepared by the court or clerk of court that is related to a judicial proceeding, including existing case management system reports.

(C) Any writing, as defined in I.C. § 74-101, containing information relating to the conduct or administration of the public’s business, prepared, owned, used or retained by the judicial branch, including the courts, the Administrative Office of the Courts, and the Judicial Council; by the Idaho State Bar; by the Idaho Bar Commission; or by the District Magistrates Commissions.

(5) "Physical record" means a judicial branch record, including a court record,  that exists in physical form, irrespective of whether it also exists in electronic form.

(6) "Electronic form" means a court record that exists as: 

(A) Electronic representations of text or graphic documents;

(B) An electronic image, including a video image, of a document, exhibit or other thing;

(C) Data in the fields or files of an electronic database or the case management system; or

(D) An audio or visual recording, analog or digital, of an event or notes in an electronic file from which a transcript of an event can be prepared; irrespective of whether it also exists in physical form.

(7) "Remote access" means the ability whereby a person may electronically search, examine and copy court information maintained in a court record by means of access via the Internet or other publicly available telecommunication mechanism.

(8) "Bulk Distribution" means the distribution of all, or a significant subset of the information in court records in electronic form, as is, and without modification or compilation.

(9) "Case management system" means the court technology program, and other technologies that assist in the efficient management of the courts or that improve access to the courts and court records.

(10) "Compiled Data Information" means information that is derived from the selection, aggregation or reformulation by the court of some of the information from more than one individual court record.

(11) “Redaction” means that personal data identifiers will be omitted or obscured in the manner specified in Idaho Rule of Electronic Filing Rule and Service 15, Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 2.6, and Idaho Rule of Family Law Procedure 218.

(c) Applications.  This Rule shall apply to all court records existing on or after the date of adoption of this Rule. Provided, this Rule shall not prevent examination, inspection, and copying of records otherwise exempt from disclosure by the following persons in the following situations:

(1) If approved by the custodian judge, or the custodian in the case of any record in the judicial council, federal, state and local officials or their agent accessing a judicial record in the exercise of their official duties and powers; however, requests for numerous records or records from more than one county must be approved by the Chief Justice.

(2) Parties to an action and their attorneys accessing the court file of the action, unless restricted by order of the court. However, parties to an action and their attorneys may not access records identified in paragraphs (g)(3), (4), (5), (15), and (17)(F) that were filed by another party, unless permitted by court order. Parties may authorize release of their own court filings directly to a third party.

(3) Disclosure by the custodian of statistical information that is not descriptive of identifiable persons. 

(4) Employees shall have access to their own personnel files.

(5) Judges, clerks, trial court administrators, or other staff employed by or working under the supervision of the courts who need to access specific court records for the performance of their job duties. 

(6) Guardians ad litem and court visitors in guardianship and conservatorship cases shall have access to the case information sheet in those cases, unless restricted by order of the court.

(d) Access to Court Records, Examination and Copying.  Except as provided in paragraphs (g), (i), and (j), the following are subject to examination, inspection and copying.  The Supreme Court may provide such access to these records through terminals at judicial branch facilities or on-line from any remote location over the Internet, subject to the limitations of the case management system. 

(1) Litigant/party indexes to cases filed with the court;  

(2) Listings of new case filings, including the names of the parties; 

(3) The chronological case summary of events; 

(4) Calendars or dockets of court proceedings, including case numbers and captions, date and time of hearings, and location of hearings;

(5) Minutes, orders, opinions, findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgments of a court and notices of the clerk of the court;  

(6) Transcripts and recordings of all trials and hearings open to the public; 

(7) Pleadings, motions, affidavits, responses, memoranda, briefs and other documents filed or lodged in a case file; 

(8) Administrative or other records of the clerk, justice, judge, magistrate or staff of the court unless exempt from disclosure by statute, case law, or court rule; and

(9)A court record that has been offered or admitted into evidence in a judicial action or that a court has considered as evidence or relied upon for purposes of deciding a motion; except that, before final disposition by the trial court, access to any exhibit shall be allowed only with the permission of the custodian judge subject to any conditions set by the custodian judge and shall take place under the supervision of the office of the court clerk. After final disposition by the trial court, the custodian judge may set reasonable conditions for access to exhibits admitted or offered. The public shall not have access at any time to items of contraband or items that pose a health or safety hazard; for example, drugs, weapons, child pornography, toxic substances, or bodily fluids, without permission of the custodian judge.

(e)  Bulk distribution.  Bulk distribution of electronic court data is not allowed.  However, at its discretion, the Supreme Court may grant requests for scholarly, journalistic, political, governmental, research, evaluation, or statistical purposes where the identification of specific individuals is ancillary to the request.

(f) Compiled Information.  Any member of the public may request copies of existing compiled information that consists solely of information that is not exempt from disclosure. Case management reports and information shall be exempt from disclosure until final approval by the Supreme Court of the advancing justice time standards. In addition, the Supreme Court may compile and provide the information if it determines, in its discretion, that the resources are available to compile the information and that it is an appropriate use of public resources. The Supreme Court may delegate to its staff the authority to make the initial determination as to whether to provide the compiled information. 

Compiled information that includes information to which public access has been restricted may be requested from the Supreme Court by any member of the public. The request shall:

(1) identify what information is sought,

(2) describe the purpose for requesting the information and explain how the information will benefit the public interest or public education, and

(3) explain provisions for the secure protection of any information requested to which public access is restricted or prohibited.

The response to the request shall be made by the Supreme Court within ten (10) working days following the date of the request.

(g)  Court records exempt from disclosure.  Except as provided in paragraph (h) of this rule, court records specified below are exempt from disclosure.  Any willful or intentional disclosure or accessing of a sealed, shielded, or exempt court record, not otherwise authorized under this rule, may be treated as a contempt of court. 

(1) Documents and records to which access is otherwise restricted by state or federal law; 

(2) Pre-trial risk assessments and pre-sentence investigation reports, except as provided in Idaho Criminal Rule 32; 

(3) Affidavits or sworn testimony and records of proceedings in support of the issuance of search or arrest warrant pending the return of the warrant; 

(4) Unreturned search warrants; 

(5) Unreturned arrest warrants, except bench warrants, or summonses in a criminal case, provided that the arrest warrants or summonses may be disclosed by law enforcement agencies at their discretion;

(A) An "arrest warrant" is a warrant issued for the arrest and detention of a defendant at the initiation of a criminal action.

(B) A "bench warrant" is a warrant issued for the arrest and detention of a defendant who has already appeared in a criminal action, and it would include a warrant issued for failure to appear at a hearing or trial, a warrant issued for violation of the conditions of release or bail, and a warrant issued for a probation violation.

(6) Unless otherwise ordered by the custodian judge, applications made and orders granted for the interception of wire, electronic or oral communications pursuant to Idaho Code § 18-6708, recordings of intercepted communications provided to the court, and reports made to the court regarding such interceptions under Idaho Code § 18-6708(7);

(7) Except as provided by Idaho Criminal Rules or statutes, records of proceedings and the identity of jurors of grand juries; 

(8) Except as provided by the Idaho Criminal Rules or Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure, the names of jurors placed in a panel for a trial of an action and the contents of jury qualification forms and jury questionnaires for these jurors, unless ordered to be released by the presiding judge; 

(9) Juvenile court records as hereinafter provided:

(A) All court records of Child Protective Act proceedings.

(B) In Juvenile Corrections Act cases filed before July 1, 2017, all court records of Juvenile Corrections Act proceedings on a petition filed under I.C. § 20-510 pending an admit/deny hearing held pursuant to Rule 6, I.J.R. to permit the parties to request that the court consider, or permit the court to consider on its own motion, closing the records and files. Thereafter the court records shall be open unless the court enters an order exempting them from disclosure.  At the admit/deny hearing the court shall determine whether the court records shall remain exempt from disclosure as provided in 1. and 2. below:

1. Court records of Juvenile Corrections Act proceedings brought against a juvenile under the age of fourteen (14), or brought against a juvenile fourteen (14) years or older who is charged with an act that would not be a felony if committed by an adult, shall be exempt from disclosure if the court determines by a written order in each case that the records should be closed to the public.

2. Court records of Juvenile Corrections Act proceedings brought against a juvenile fourteen (14)years or older who is charged with an act which would be a felony if committed by an adult, shall be exempt from disclosure if the court determines upon a written order made in each case that extraordinary circumstances exist which justify that the records should be confidential.  If the juvenile is not found to have committed an act which would be a felony if committed by an adult or the charge is reduced to allege an act which would not constitute a felony if committed by an adult, all existing and future case records and documents shall be exempt from disclosure if the court determines by written order in each case that the court records should be closed to the public.

(C) In Juvenile Corrections Act cases filed on or after July 1, 2017, all court records of Juvenile Corrections Act proceedings on a petition filed under I.C. § 20-510 except as provided in 1, 2, and 3 below:

       1. The court may release juvenile court records if the court finds, upon motion by the prosecuting attorney, interested party, or other interested persons, that the public’s interest in the right to know outweighs the adverse effect of the release of the records on the juvenile’s rehabilitation and competency development.  In making this decision, the court may consider the following factors:

            a. Age of the juvenile;
            b. Seriousness of the offense;
            c. Whether the offense deals with persons or property;
            d. Prior record of the juvenile;
            e. The juvenile’s risk to reoffend; and
            f. The impact on the victim or victims.

       2. The following individuals or entities may inspect juvenile court records without a court order unless otherwise prohibited by law:
            a. Probation officers;
            b. Law enforcement officers;
            c. The Department of Juvenile Corrections;
            d. The Department of Correction;
            e. The Department of Health and Welfare pursuant to its statutory responsibilities in title 16, chapter 16; title 16, chapter 24; or title 20, chapter 5, Idaho Code.

       3. The victim of misconduct is entitled to receive:
            a. The name, address and telephone number of the juvenile offender involved;
            b. the name of the juvenile offender’s parents or guardians, and their addresses and telephone numbers;
            c. The petition, the decree, and orders of restitution;
            d. Any other information as provided in title 19, chapter 53, Idaho Code.
 

(D) Notwithstanding any other provision of paragraph (g)(9) of this rule, reports prepared pursuant to I.C. § 20-520(1), and other records and reports described in paragraph (g)(17) of this rule are exempt from disclosure.

(E) Notwithstanding any other provision of paragraph (g)(9) of this rule, the court shall make available upon the written request of a superintendent or an employee of the school district authorized by the board of trustees of the school district, the facts contained in any records of a juvenile maintained under Chapter 5, Title 20,Idaho Code.  If a request is made to examine records in courts of multiple districts, it shall be ruled upon by the Chief Justice.

(10) All records of proceedings relating to hospitalizations pursuant to Idaho Code sections, 66-326, 66-329, 66-406, 16-2413, 16-2414, 56-2104 and 56-2105.  Provided, the court may disclose these records when consented to by the person identified or his or her legal guardian, or the parent if the individual is a minor. The court in its discretion may make such records available to the spouse, or the immediate family of the person who is the subject of the proceedings; 

(11)  A uniform citation (the citation only, not the case type); however courts may share the citation with federal, state and local officials or their agents in the exercise of their official duties and powers;

(12) Adoption records and records of proceedings to terminate the parent and child relationship under Chapter 20 of Title 16, Idaho Code, except that an adopted person or a child whose parental rights were terminated may obtain non-identifying medical information in all cases, and the court may also in its discretion make information from the records available, upon such conditions as the court may impose, to the person requesting the record, if the court finds upon written verification of a medical doctor a compelling medical need for disclosure; 

(13) All records of proceedings relating to the consent required for abortion for minors brought pursuant to I.C. 18-609A(1) or (3);

(14) All records of proceedings relating to the judicial authorization of sterilization procedures pursuant to I.C. 39-3901;

(15) Documents filed or lodged with the court in camera; 

(16) Protection order petitions and related records, maintained pursuant to either the domestic violence crime prevention act or chapter 79, title 18 of the Idaho Code, except orders of the court; 

(17) Records maintained by a court that are gathered at the request or under the auspices of a court (other than records that have been admitted in evidence); 

(A) to determine an individual's need for counseling, rehabilitation, treatment or assistance with personal conflicts;  

(B) to assist in assigning an appropriate disposition in the case, including the ADR screening report and screening reports prepared by Family Court Service Coordinators or their designees; 

(C) to provide the court with a recommendation regarding the custody of minor children; 

(D) to provide a court with a psychological evaluation of an individual; 

(E) to provide annual or other accountings by conservators and guardians, except to interested parties as defined by Idaho law;

(F) to provide personal or identifying information on individuals for internal court use, including case information sheets filed pursuant to Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 3(d) or Idaho Rule of Family Law Procedure 201, and victim information/restitution sheets.

(18) A reference list of personal data identifiers or an unredacted copy of a document filed pursuant to Idaho Rule of Electronic Filing and Service 15, Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 2.6 or Idaho Rule of Family Law Procedure 218; however, courts will share the reference list or unredacted copy with other government agencies as required or allowed by law without court order or application for purposes of the business of those agencies.  

(19) All  court filings, including attachments, in guardianship or conservatorship proceedings whether temporary or permanent, and in proceedings involving a protective arrangement under I.C. § 15-5-409, and whether for an adult, a minor, or a developmentally disabled person, except to interested persons as defined in section 15-1-201, Idaho Code, guardians ad litem, court visitors, or any monitoring entity as defined by Idaho law, or any attorney representing any of the foregoing; provided, however, the following shall not be exempt from disclosure:

(A)  the register of actions for the case;

(B)  letters of guardianship and letters of conservatorship, and any supplemental orders, decrees or judgments describing, limiting, or expanding the rights and duties of the guardian or conservator;

(C) any order by the court regarding bond by a conservator, and the conservator's bond ;

(D) any order, decree, or judgment dismissing, concluding, or otherwise disposing of the case.

(20) The records in cases involving child custody, child support, and paternity, except that officers and employees of the Department of Health and Welfare shall be able to examine and copy such records in the exercise of their official duties.  Other exceptions to this rule are that the register of actions shall be available to the public, and a redacted copy of any order, decree or judgment issued in the case shall be available to the public.  However, no redacted copy of any order, decree or judgment must be prepared until there is a specific request for the document. Provided further that any person may request that the court make other records in the case available for examination and copying.  Any individual may make the request by filing a court-provided form.  When the court receives such a request, it shall promptly review the records in the case and shall make the records available except for those records or portions of records that allege abuse, abandonment or neglect of a child, or which the court determines would inflict undue embarrassment to or put at risk a person referenced in the record who was a child at the time of the filing of the record, or which are exempt from disclosure under other provisions of Supreme Court rules.

     This subsection (g)(20) shall apply only to records in cases filed on or after July 1, 2012, and to records in cases in which a motion to modify an order, decree or judgment was filed on or after July 1, 2012.

(21) Records of judicial work product or drafts, including all notes, e-mail, memoranda or drafts prepared by a judge or a court-employed attorney, law clerk, legal assistant or secretary;

(22) Personnel records, application for employment and records of employment investigations and hearings, including, but not limited to, information regarding sex, race, marital status, birth date, home address, telephone number, applications, testing and scoring materials, grievances or complaints against an employee, correspondence, and performance evaluations; provided the following are not exempt from disclosure: a public official's public service or employment history, classification, pay grade and step, longevity, gross salary and salary history, status, workplace, employing agency, and any adverse official action taken against an employee as a result of a grievance or complaint (except a private letter of reprimand), and after such action is taken (except when the action is a private letter of reprimand), the record of any investigation and hearing leading to the action;

(23) Applications, testing and scoring to be included on a court maintained roster;

(24) Computer programs and related records, including but not limited to technical and user manuals, which the judicial branch has acquired and agreed to maintain on a confidential basis;

(25) Records maintained by the state law library that link a patron's name with materials requested or borrowed in the patron's name with a specific subject about which the patron has requested information or materials;

(26) Allegations of attorney misconduct received by the Idaho State Bar and records of the Idaho State Bar relating to attorney discipline, except where confidentiality is waived under the Idaho Bar Commission Rules;

(27) All records relating to applications for permission to take the Idaho bar examination or for admission to practice as exempted from disclosure in the Idaho Bar Commission Rules;

(28) All records and records of proceedings, except the identity of applicants for appointment to judicial office, of the Idaho Judicial Council or any District Magistrates Commission pertaining to the appointment, performance, removal, disability, retirement or disciplining of judges or justices. Provided, however, that the record of a disciplinary proceeding filed by the Judicial Council in the Supreme Court loses its confidential character upon filing;

(29) Pending grant applications and attachments submitted to the Guardian Ad Litem Grant Review Board for consideration of grant funding authorized under Title 16, Chapter 16, Idaho Code.  Provided, however, such applications and attachments will no longer be exempt following the Board’s consideration of all applications and the Supreme Court’s awarding of grant funds.  

(30) Computer programs and related records, or portions of those programs or records including, but not limited to, technical and user manuals, related to cybersecurity.

(A) Exempt records include those relating to the nature, location, configuration, or function of cybersecurity devices, programs, or systems. Those cybersecurity assets are designed to protect people, computer systems, networks, information technology, communications, data and other systems from cyberattack, as well as from the unauthorized access or disclosure of information.

(B) This exemption does not block the disclosure of financial records that show the amount of public funds spent to pay for related devices, computer programs or systems.

(31) Any court record not in a case file - other than public expenditure records - implicating safety and security, disclosure of which is reasonably likely to jeopardize the safety of people or property. Examples include:

(A) emergency evacuation plans;

(B) security plans;

(C) courthouse blueprints;

(D) security related surveys;

(E) vulnerability assessments;

(F) security staff work schedules; and

(G) similar records.

(32) Rough or preliminary transcripts of court proceedings generated by automated speech-to-text software are exempt from disclosure unless otherwise ordered by the court.

(h)  Permissive Release of Judicial Decision in Exempted Categories. Records of courts' determinations in proceedings exempt from disclosure under (g) of this rule may, by direction of the court issuing the determination, be subject to inspection, examination and copying in a manner that preserves the anonymity of the participants to the proceeding. In particular, the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals may provide copies of their rulings in appeals from proceedings exempt from disclosure under paragraph (g) by using "John Doe/Jane Doe" designations or other anonymous designations in documents made available for inspection, examination and copying.  Further deletions from the decisions may be made if necessary to preserve anonymity.

(j)  Court records shielded from disclosure.  

(1) Criminal case court records. Upon entry of an order shielding records pursuant to I.C. § 67-3004(11) all court records of the case in which such order is entered shall be shielded from public disclosure.  Provided, the entry of an order shielding records pursuant to I.C. § 67-3004(11) shall not prevent access to the records by: (A) the defendant, (B) judges, clerks, trial court administrators, or other staff employed by or working under the supervision of the courts who are acting within the scope of their duties, or (C) law enforcement personnel and prosecuting attorneys acting in the exercise of their official duties and powers.  If the shielding of criminal case court records is later revoked all records subject to the revocation shall again be open to public disclosure to the extent otherwise permitted by this Rule.  

(2) Unlawful detainer case court records.  All court records of an I.C. § 6-303 unlawful detainer case shall be shielded from public disclosure if: (A) the case was filed on or after January 1, 2025, (B) the case is dismissed, (C) no appeal of the case is pending, and (D) three (3) years have passed from the filing of the case or a stipulation showing the parties have agreed to the shielding is filed with the court.  Provided, the shielding of unlawful detainer case court records shall not prevent access to the records by the parties or judges, clerks, trial court administrators, or other staff employed by or working under the supervision of the courts who are acting within the scope of their duties.  

(k)  Request for Records.  

(1) Any person desiring to inspect, examine or copy physical records shall make an oral or written request to the custodian.  If the request is oral, the custodian may require a written request. The custodian may request contact information as provided in I.C. § 74-102.  A request for public records and delivery of the public records may be made by electronic mail. The request must clearly identify each record requested so that the custodian can locate the record without doing extensive research and continuing requests for documents not yet in existence will not be considered.  The custodian may provide the requester information to help the requester narrow the scope of the request or to help the requester make the request more specific when the response to the request is likely to be voluminous.  

(2) Custodian Defined.  The custodian of judicial public records is designated as follows: 

(A) For any record in a case file in the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals, the custodian is the Clerk of the Supreme Court or a deputy clerk designated in writing. 

(B) For any record not in a case file in the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals, the custodian is the Administrative Director of the Courts or other person designated in writing by the Chief Justice. 

(C) For any record in a case file in a district court or magistrate court, the custodian is the Clerk of the District Court or a deputy clerk designated in writing. 

(D) For any record not in a case file in the district court or magistrate court, the custodian is the Trial Court Administrator of the judicial district, or judge or magistrate designated by the Administrative District Judge. 

(E) For any record in the judicial council, the custodian is the Executive Director of the Judicial Council. 

(F) For any record in the Idaho State Bar, the custodian is the Executive Director of the Idaho State Bar or other person designated in writing by the Idaho State Bar Commissioners. 

(G) For the purposes of the statewide case management system, the statewide case management system data storage, and compiled information, the custodian is the Administrative Director of the Courts or other person designated in writing by the Chief Justice.

(3) Custodian Judge.  The custodian judge of a judicial public record is designated as follows: 

(A) For any record in the Supreme Court, statewide case management system, or the statewide case management system data storage, the custodian judge is the Chief Justice, or the Vice-Chief Justice in the absence of the Chief Justice.  

(B) For any record in the Court of Appeals, the custodian judge is the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, or a Judge of the Court of Appeals designated in writing. 

(C) For any record in a case file in the district court or magistrate court, the custodian judge is the presiding magistrate or judge of that case, or judge or magistrate designated in writing by the Administrative District Judge. 

(D) For any record not in a case file in the district court or magistrate court, the custodian judge is the Administrative District Judge of that judicial district, or other district judge or magistrate designated in writing by the Administrative District Judge. 

(E) For any record in the judicial council, the custodian judge is the Chief Justice or the Vice-Chief Justice in the absence of the Chief Justice. 

(F) For any record in the Idaho State Bar, the custodian judge is the Administrative District Judge of the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Idaho or a district judge designated in writing by the Administrative District Judge. 

(4) Response to Request.  The custodian shall respond to a request for examination of public records.  Within three (3) working days from receipt of request, the custodian shall disclose the records requested, refer the request to the custodian judge for determination, or give written notice of denial of the request.  Provided, if the custodian determines that it will take more than three (3) working days to determine whether the request should be granted, or that a longer period of time is needed to locate or retrieve the requested records, the custodian shall so notify the person making the request within ten (10) working days following the date of the request.  If the documents requested are disclosed by the custodian, no other notice need be given by the custodian.  The custodian is not under a duty to compile or summarize information contained in records, nor is the custodian obligated to create new records for the requesting party, except as provided herein.  The custodian may deny a request for a copy of all or part of a transcript of an administrative or judicial proceeding or other voluminous publication or document when by rule or statute it may be obtained from the preparer of such record after payment of a fee.  Efforts should be made to respond promptly to requests for records.

(5) Response by Custodian Judge.  If a custodian determines that there is a question as to whether records should be disclosed pursuant to a request, or if a request is made for a ruling by a judge after the custodian denies the request, the custodian shall refer the request to the custodian judge for determination.  The custodian judge shall make a written determination as to whether the records should be disclosed within ten (10) working days following the request.  In the sole discretion of the custodian judge, an informal hearing may be held by the custodian judge on the question of whether the records should be disclosed.  The custodian judge shall determine the time and place of the hearing and the notice to be given by the custodian to the person requesting the records and any other interested person.  If a hearing is held under this rule, the response to the person requesting the record may be delayed a reasonable time after the conclusion of the hearing.  

(6) Cost of Copying Records.  The cost to make a paper copy of any record filed in a case with the clerk of the district court shall be determined by the clerk, and shall not exceed the amount specified in I.C. § 31-3201.  The cost for any other copying of any record shall be determined by order of the Supreme Court or the Administrative District Judge in accordance with the provisions of I.C. § 74-102.  The costs so determined shall be paid, in advance, by the person requesting the records.  Any delay in paying the costs of copying the records shall extend the time for response by the custodian.  

(7) Proceedings after Denial.  If a custodian denies a request for the examination or copying of records, the aggrieved party may file a request for a ruling by the custodian judge.  If the custodian judge denies a request for the examination or copying of records, the sole remedy of any aggrieved person shall be to institute proceedings for disclosure in the district court in accordance with I.C. § 74-115. 

(Repealed in its ENTIRETY April 27, 2007, NEW Rule 32 adopted April 27, 2007;effective July 1, 2007, amended and effective February 1, 2009; amended March 18, 2011, effective July 1, 2011; amended February 9, 2012, effective July 1, 2012; amended October 5, 2013, effective January 1, 2014; amended November 25, 2013, effective January 1, 2014; amended April 2, 2014; effective July 1, 2014; amended April 2, 2015, effective April 15, 2015; amended May 7, 2015, effective July 1, 2015; amended April 12, 2016, effective July 1, 2016; amended November 14, 2016, effective November 22, 2016; amended June 30, 2017, effective July 1, 2017; amended May 14, 2019; effective July 1, 2019; amended May 4, 2020; effective July 1, 2020; amended March 9, 2023, effective April 1, 2023; amended March 30, 2023, effective May 1, 2023; amended December 21, 2023, effective January 1, 2024; amended September 30, 2024, effective October 1, 2024; amended September 13, effective January 1, 2025; amended December 9, effective January 1, 2025; amended December 17, effective January 1, 2025; amended April 23, 2025, effective April 23, 2025; amended June 3, 2025, effective July 1, 2025; amended August 20, 2025, effective August 20, 2025; amended August 26, 2025, effective August 26, 2025; amended November 18, 2025, effective January 1, 2026; amended February 5, 2026, effective February 5, 2026.)

Idaho Court Administrative Rule 33. Withdrawal of Files.

No paper, record or file in any action or proceeding shall be removed from the custody of the clerk except that such papers, records and files may be withdrawn for the use of the court.

(Adopted December 2, 2015, effective July 1, 2016.)

(a)  General Standards for Retention.  This rule requires courts to preserve certain records indefinitely and authorizes the destruction of others. Whenever in this rule it is required that a record be preserved, it may be preserved either in the form of the original document, microfilm, or other archival media, including digital entry in the court’s automated case management system.  Courts using any type of microfilming process must follow the Idaho Standards for Microfilming Court Records in order to ensure that the film is of archival quality.  All equipment purchased and services contracted must meet these standards.

(b) Preservation and Destruction of Court Records. Courts shall not destroy any record filed conventionally pursuant to Idaho Rules for Electronic Filing and Service 5(a). The following schedule sets out the minimum time period that must pass before records can be destroyed and the specific records that must be preserved when destroying a file.  It is within each court's discretion to exceed the minimum time period before destruction or to preserve additional records:

(c)  Notice to Historical Society.  The court shall give written notice to the Idaho State Historical Society of the intent to destroy or dispose of any record.  No record shall be disposed of or destroyed for 90 days following notice unless the Idaho State Historical Society gives written notice to the court that it has no interest in obtaining or preserving the record.

(d)  Sealed Records.  Documents in sealed cases may be preserved either in the form of the original document or a microfilmed or other permanent copy thereof; provided, however, that when preserved by microfilm, the microfilm shall be designated as "sealed" or shall be maintained in a separate sealed area.  Sealed documents are not sent to the Historical Society, thus no notice to the Historical Society is necessary before sealed documents are destroyed.

(Adopted April 27, 1995, effective July 1, 1995; amended July 17, 1996, effective October 1, 1996; amended March 9, 1999, effective July 1, 1999; amended; amended March 28, 2000, effective July 1, 2000; amended Mary 22, 2000, effective July 1, 2000; amended May 4, 2020; effective July 1, 2020; amended July 28, 2021, effective July 28, 2021.)

(a) General Standards for Retention. This rule requires courts to preserve certain records indefinitely and authorizes the destruction of others. Whenever in this rule it is required that a record be preserved, it may be preserved either in the form of the original document, microfilm, or other archival media, including digital entry in the court’s automated case management system. Courts using any type of microfilming process must follow the Idaho Standards for Microfilming Court Records in order to ensure that the film is of archival quality. All equipment purchased and services contracted must meet these standards. 

(b) Preservation of Court Record, Other Than Exhibits, While Defendant Incarcerated. Notwithstanding any provision of this rule, no court record, excluding exhibits, pertaining to a criminal conviction or a juvenile corrections act adjudication, may be destroyed while a defendant or juvenile is incarcerated or being held in any state or county institution in connection with the conviction to which the records pertain, nor while a defendant or juvenile is participating in a court-ordered probation or rehabilitation program or is subject to conditions of parole in connection with the conviction to which the records pertain. 

(c) Preservation of Exhibits in Certain Cases. In any case in which a sentence of life imprisonment or death has been imposed, the exhibits shall not be destroyed while the defendant is incarcerated or being held in any state or county institution in connection with the conviction to which the records pertain, nor while a defendant is participating in a court-ordered probation or rehabilitation program or is subject to conditions of parole in connection with the conviction to which the records pertain.In all other criminal cases, the exhibits may be destroyed following ten days notice to the parties after expiration of the time for appeal or from the determination of an appeal, or from the determination of a proceeding following an appeal, whichever is later.

(d) Preservation and Destruction of Court Records. The following schedule sets out the minimum time period that must pass before records can be destroyed and the specific records that must be preserved when destroying a file.It is within each court’s discretion to exceed the minimum time period before destruction or to preserve additional records:

* or from the determination of an appeal, or from the determination of a proceeding following an appeal, whichever is later.Keep the entire record if the defendant/juvenile is incarcerated, on probation, on parole, or in a rehabilitation program in connection with the conviction in which the records pertain.

** or from the determination of an appeal, or from the determination of a proceeding following an appeal, whichever is later.However, if the sentence imposed was life imprisonment or death, then the exhibits must be kept while the defendant is incarcerated, on probation, on parole, or in a rehabilitation program in connection with the conviction to which the records pertain.

(e)Notice to Historical Society.The court shall give written notice to the Idaho State Historical Society of the intent to destroy or dispose of any record.No record shall be disposed of or destroyed for 90 days following notice unless the Idaho State Historical Society gives written notice to the court that it has no interest in obtaining or preserving the record.

(f) Sealed Records. Documents in sealed cases may be preserved either in the form of the original document or a microfilmed or other permanent copy thereof; provided, however, that when preserved by microfilm, the microfilm shall be designated as “sealed” for shall be maintained in a separate sealed area.  Sealed documents are not sent to the Historical Society, thus no notice to the Historical Society is necessary before sealed documents are destroyed.

(Adopted April 27, 1995, effective July 1, 1995; amended March 20, 2000, effective July 1, 2000; amended May 22, 2000, effective July 1, 2000; amended May 4, 2020; effective July 1, 2020; amended July 28, 2021, effective July 28, 2021.)

Notwithstanding Rules 37 and 38 any tape or other recording of any criminal or civil proceeding may be erased or destroyed after the same has been transcribed and settled by the court, where any rule requires such settlement of the transcript. 

(Adopted March 28, 1986, effective July 1, 1986.)

(a)  Original Records Kept by Clerk of Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. The Clerk of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals must keep case files that include the records of civil and criminal appeals and other proceedings. 

(1) Form and content. The Clerk of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, in consultation with the Chief Justice, will determine the form, style, indexes, and records and systems used to keep the case files of civil and criminal appeals and other proceedings.

(2)  Contents of case files in civil appeals and other proceedings. The clerk of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals will keep the following in civil case files and those of other appellate proceedings:

(A) documents filed in civil appeals or other non-criminal proceedings;

(B) transcripts, including magistrate transcripts submitted as exhibits;  

(C) district court clerk's records; 

(D) administrative agency records; and

(E) register of actions. 

(3) Contents of case files in criminal appeals. The clerk of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals will keep the following in criminal case files: 

(A) documents filed in criminal appeals;

(B) transcripts, including magistrate transcripts submitted as exhibits;

(C) district court clerk's records; and 

(D) register of actions.

(b)  Disposition of non-criminal appellate records.

(1) Non-permanent records. The entire case file in civil appeals and other proceedings must be kept for 10 years from the date of remittitur, or the date of closure if no remittitur is issued. 

(2) Permanent records. The entire case file in the following cases must be kept permanently:

(A) water law cases; 

(B) election related cases;

(C) redistricting cases; and

(D) any other case that the Clerk of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals determines has historical or legal significance. 

(c)  Disposition of appellate records from criminal appeals.     

(1) Non-permanent records. The entire case file in criminal appeals must be kept for 10 years from the date of remittitur.

(2) Permanent records. The entire case file in the following criminal appeals must be kept permanently:

(A) death penalty cases; and

(B) any other case that the Clerk of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals determines has historical or legal significance. 

(d)  Additional permanent records. The Clerk of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals or other Court designee may identify additional permanent records.      

(e)  Records destruction. 

(1) Non-permanent records. 

(A) The Clerk of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals may destroy paper copies of non-permanent records only if it first creates and retains an electronic copy of those records.

(B) The Court may elect not to destroy physical copies of non-permanent records. 

(2) Permanent records. 

(A) The Court may keep physical copies of permanent records in perpetuity.  

(B) If the Court decides to destroy physical copies of permanent records the records may only be destroyed after:

(i) the record is scanned and an electronic version kept permanently; and

(ii) the Idaho State Historical Society receives 120 days advance notice, subject to any court order entered in the case and the provisions of I.C.A.R. 32.

(f) Appellate records provided to research facilities. The Clerk of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals will provide the Idaho State Law Library and the Law Library of the University of Idaho College of Law copies of appellate briefs after a case is closed.

(Adopted June 15, 1987, effective November 1, 1987; Repealed; new rule adopted August 26, 2025, effective August 26, 2025.)

The administrative district judge of each judicial district shall have the authority and power to provide for adequate law libraries for the district courts and the magistrates division under the statutes of this state as part of the necesary facilities and equipment necessary for the courts to function and carry out their judicial responsibilities. It shall be the duty of the administrative district judge or acting administrative district judge to budget for a current set of the Idaho Code, the Idaho State Bar Desk Book and a law dictionary for each district judge and magistrate. In addition, it is recommended that the following legal resources, in current editions and with current supplementation, should be readily available to each judge and magistrate in the district as a minimum: the city and county codes of municipalities within the court's jurisdiction, the Idaho Reports, citators covering the reports and statutes of Idaho, a digest of Idaho cases, the Idaho jury instructions, a treatise of Idaho law on evidence, a treatise on criminal law and procedure, a subscription to the Idaho Law Review of the College of Law of the University of Idaho, and an advance sheet service for Idaho cases. The Supreme Court will recommend to the county commissioners and clerks the acquisition of hardware, software, facilities, and subscriptions to implement the use of computer assisted legal research (CALR) in county law libraries. If these recommendations are implemented in a county, the administrative district judge may modify the recommended legal research resources available to each judge and magistrate by deleting those resources that are readily and economically accessible through the CALR resources available in the county law library. 

(Adopted December 27, 1979, effective July 1, 1980; amended March 23, 1990, effective July 1, 1990.)

Idaho Court Administrative Rule 41.1. Clerk's Office and Orders by Clerk.

The office of the clerk of the district court with the clerk or a deputy in attendance shall be open for the transaction of business on such days and during such hours as the administrative district judge of the judicial district in which the county is located may prescribe. All motions and applications in the clerk's office for issuing process, for entering defaults or judgments by default, and for other proceedings which do not require allowance or order of the court are grantable of course by the clerk; but his action may be suspended or altered or rescinded by the court upon cause shown.

(Adopted December 2, 2015, effective July 1, 2016.)

(a)In each judicial district, an administrative judge shall be elected by a majority of the district judges within the district.  If a majority of the district judges cannot agree as to who shall be the administrative judge, then an administrative judge shall be appointed by a majority of the justices of the Supreme Court.  

(b)The administrative judge shall be elected or appointed for a term of three years, subject to reelection.

(c)In the event of a vacancy in the office of administrative judge, a replacement shall be elected by a majority of the district judges within the district to complete the unexpired term.  If a majority of the district judges cannot agree as to who shall be elected to complete the unexpired term, then an administrative judge shall be appointed by a majority of the justices of the Supreme Court.

(d)The administrative judge may be removed by a majority vote of the district judges of the district. 

(e)The actions of the majority of district judges pursuant to the above subsections of this rule shall be subject to disapproval by a majority of the justices of the Supreme Court.

(f)The powers and duties of the administrative judge include all those powers and duties as established by the Supreme Court.

(Adopted August 4, 2005, effective August 15, 2005; amended November 6, 2015, effective November 6, 2015.)

A district trial court administrator may be appointed by the Supreme Court in each judicial district, to carry out the Supreme Court's constitutional responsibility to administer and supervise the state court system and to carry out those administrative duties of the District Court that may be delegated to the trial court Administrator by the Administrative Judge. The authority to hire a district trial court administrator rests in the Supreme Court, and has been delegated to the Administrative Director of the Courts. District trial court administrators shall be selected jointly by both the Administrative Director of the Courts, acting on behalf of the Supreme Court, and the involved Administrative Judge. If there is disagreement concerning the process of selection, the selection itself, or concerning duties to be performed, the matter shall be resolved by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, provided that the Chief Justice shall consult jointly with the Administrative Director of the Courts and the involved Administrative Judge prior to making the final determination. A district trial court administrator performs work under the general direction and supervision of the Administrative Judge, and assists the Supreme Court, through the Administrative Director of the Courts, in the Court's constitutional duties to administer and supervise a unified and integrated judicial system and to carry out those administrative duties of the District Court that may be established by statute or inherent power of the court. 

(Adopted December 20, 1988, effective December 20, 1988.)

(a) The members of the Administrative Conference shall include the following members, or their designees:

(1) the Justices of the Supreme Court;

(2) the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals;

(3) the Administrative District Judges of each of the judicial districts;

(4) the Trial Court Administrators of each of the judicial districts;

(5) the President of the District Judgesí Association;

(6) the current President, the immediate past President, and the President-elect of the Magistrate Judges' Association;

(7) the Administrative Director of the Courts; and

(8) such other persons as the Supreme Court may designate as members of the Administrative Conference.

(b) The Administrative Conference shall meet three (3) times each year, or according to such other schedule as determined by the Supreme Court, and at such other times as the Chief Justice shall direct.

(c) It shall be the responsibility of the Administrative Conference collectively, and of each member of the Administrative Conference individually, to make decisions in such a manner as to promote the effective administration of justice throughout the state of Idaho, without preference to any area, region, or class of persons.     

(d) Subject to the constitutional and statutory authority and responsibility of the Supreme Court to administer and supervise the judicial system and to adopt rules of practice and procedure for all courts, the Administrative Conference shall have the responsibility to make recommendations on the following subjects:

(1) the formulation of policies for the judiciary;

(2) the development and refinement of the Mission Statement of the Idaho Courts;

(3) the development of standards for the trial courts and of plans for improving all court operations, with reliance upon evidence-based practices;

(4) the development of proposals for the improved administration of the courts;

(5) the development of policies for ensuring access to the courts and enhancing service to the public;

(6) the development of the Supreme Courtís budget proposals;

(7) legislation that will improve the operation of the judicial branch and promote the effective administration of justice;

(8) the promotion of recruitment and retention of judges and other judicial branch employees, including steps to improve compensation and the working environment;

(9) the formulation of policies for training and continuing education of judges and other court personnel;

(10) the improvement and expansion of the use of technology in the judicial branch in order to reduce costs, improve access to the courts, and promote the speedy resolution of cases;

(11) the development of policies to promote the timely disposition of cases and effective use of judicial resources, including the development of time standards for the resolution of various classes of cases;

(12) the development of uniform standards for the reporting of court caseloads and other statistical data to facilitate improved administration of the judicial system and more effective tracking of costs, benefits, and workloads; 

(13) the development of policies to ensure the security of judges, court personnel, and court facilities, and the adoption of emergency plans that include a coordinated response with appropriate government entities.

(e) In addition, the Administrative Conference shall have the following responsibilities:

(1) to assist all justices, judges, and court leaders to achieve effective leadership;

(2) to share and discuss challenges and concerns in the operation of the courts and to attempt to achieve solutions through an open exchange of views, knowledge and experience;

(3) to facilitate effective communication and dialogue with the executive and legislative branches of state government and with counties, cities, and other entities;

(4) to promote the well-being and effectiveness of judges and other judicial branch employees.

(Adopted March 8, 2012, effective April 1, 2012; amended effective April 10, 2023)

Any memorandum of agreement or memorandum of understanding entered into or proposed to be entered into by an administrative judge, trial court administrator, or any other person acting on behalf of the courts or any court, with any department, agency, official, or employee of any governmental or private entity, shall be submitted to the administrative director of the courts for review, and shall not become effective until it has been approved and signed by the administrative director of the courts or the chief justice.

(a) Nonjudicial Days Enumerated -- The nonjudicial days for the state of Idaho are as follows:

(1) Every Sunday;

(2) January 1 (New Year's Day);

(3) July 4 (Independence Day);

(4) November 11 (Veteran's Day);

(5) December 25 (Christmas Day);

(6) Third Monday in January (Martin Luther King, Jr. - Idaho Human Rights Day

(7) Third Monday in February (Washington's Birthday);

(8) June 19 (Juneteenth);

(9) Last Monday in May (Decoration Day);

(10) First Monday in September (Labor Day);

(11) Second Monday in October (Columbus Day);

(12) Fourth Thursday in November (Thanksgiving Day);

(13) First Tuesday after the First Monday in November of every even numbered year (General Election Day);

(14) Every day appointed by the President of the United States or the Governor of the state of Idaho for a public fast, thanksgiving or holiday.

Provided, if a nonjudicial day falls on Saturday, it will be celebrated on the preceding Friday, or if it falls on Sunday, it will be celebrated on the succeeding Monday.

(b) Judicial Action on Nonjudicial Days.  On nonjudicial days the Idaho Courts shall not conduct judicial business and do not have to attend their courts except they may:

(1) Give upon request, instructions to a jury when deliberating on a verdict;

(2) Receive a verdict or discharge a jury;

(3) Issue injunctions and writs of prohibition;

(4) Hear proceedings to recover personal property;

(5) Issue a Warrant of Arrest or Search Warrant;

(6) Arraign a defendant as required by law;

(7) Set or modify bail of a defendant;

(8) Issue an order in a domestic violence matter;

(9) Issue any emergency order in any civil or criminal case in the discretion of the district judge or magistrate. 

Provided, the office of the clerk of the court shall be open to conduct business on a general election day.

(Amended October 16, 1997; amended January 25, 2022, effective January 25, 2022.)

"Audio/visual coverage," as used in this rule, means broadcast, video, audio, and photographic coverage or recording of public proceedings before district and magistrate judges. Broadcast means the transmission of images or sounds by any electronic means, including but not limited to television, radio, Internet, email or streaming. Audio/visual coverage is authorized subject to the discretion of the presiding judge. The presiding judge maintains the right to limit audio/visual coverage of any public hearing when the interests of the administration of justice requires. Authorization may be revoked at any time, without prior notice, when in the discretion of the court it appears that audio/visual coverage is interfering in any way with the proper administration of justice.

(b) The presiding judge may, at his or her discretion,limit, restrict, or prohibit audio/visual coverage at any proceeding. Any decision regarding audio/visual coverage is not subject to appellate review.

(c) Audio/visual coverage of the following proceedings is prohibited:

(1) There shall be no broadcast, video or audio coverage or recording of conferences which occur in a court facility between attorneys and their clients, between co-counsel of a client, or between counsel and the presiding judge held at the bench. There shall be no audio/visual coverage of notes upon the counsel table, nor of any exhibits before they are admitted into evidence.

(2) There shall be no audio/visual coverage of in-camera sessions or judicial deliberations.

(3) There shall be no audio/visual coverage of proceedings when they are closed to the public including adoptions, mental health proceedings, child protective act proceedings, termination of parent child relations, grand jury proceedings, issuance of arrest and search warrant proceedings covered by Rule 32, ldaho Administrative Rules, or a comparable rule when the proceeding may be closed to effectuate the purposes of the rule.

(d) The presiding judge may exclude audio/visual coverage of a particular participant or direct that the identity or audio of a participant be concealed upon a determination that such coverage will have a substantial adverse effect upon a particular individual. It is expected the presiding judge will exercise particular sensitivity to victims of crime.

(e) The administrative district judge shall promulgate rules governing audio/visual coverage outside the courtroom in courthouses within the judicial district.

(f) It is the responsibility of each news representative present at the beginning of each session of court to achieve an understanding with all other representatives as to who will capture photos and/or recordings at any given time, or in the alternative, how they will pool their coverage. This understanding shall be reached outside the courtroom and without imposition upon the presiding judge or court personnel. The presiding judge shall not be called upon to resolve any disputes except to determine that if the news representatives cannot agree, the relevant photo, video or broadcast coverage will not take place.

(g) Approval of audio/visual coverage must be obtained in advance from the presiding judge.

(h) If audio/visual coverage is authorized, rules governing the media shall be established at each judge's discretion. An order permitting audio/visual coverage of court proceedings shall not include any restriction on the time when, the place where, or the manner in which the content of the audio/visual coverage may be aired or published. Audio/visual coverage may be authorized subject to the following guidelines:

(1) Jury -- Photographing or videotaping of the jury or jurors is prohibited, including during jury selection.

(2) Light -- Existing light only may be used for still photography or video coverage. Electronic flash or artificial lighting is prohibited.

(3) Camera Noise -- Camera noise and distractions shall be kept to a minimum.

(4) Still photography -- Electronic flash is prohibited. Photographers must use quiet camera equipment to minimize distraction from the judicial proceedings.

(5) Video Coverage -- No video or television camera shall give any indication of whether it is operating.

(6) Audio -- Any audio equipment shall be placed as determined by the presiding judge. There shall be no broadcast of confidential communications. If there is coverage by both radio and television, the microphones used shall serve each system without duplication.

(7) Location -- Media shall be in a position at least l5 minutes before court begins. Media positions shall not change while court is in session. The specific location or locations of media must be approved in advance by the presiding judge or designee.

(8) Dress -- Media representation shall present a neat appearance and conduct themselves in keeping with the dignity of the court proceedings as determined by the presiding judge.

(9) Pooling of Coverage -- Only one still photographer and one camera operator providing video and/or broadcast coverage shall be permitted in the courtroom unless the presiding judge allows additional cameras. Any arangements for pooling of either coverage must be made by the media organizations.

(10) Sharing of Pool Photography, Video and Broadcast Coverage -- Unless the presiding judge allows additional cameras, the pool photographer and the pool video and broadcast camera operator shall share their images and recordings with all news organizations that request them in a timely fashion. This includes all images and recordings captured in the courtroom by the pool operator(s), whether before, during or after the actual court proceedings.

(i) The presiding judge may require any media representative to demonstrate adequately in advance of a proceeding that the equipment to be used meets the standards of the rule.

(j) The public shall not be required to incur any expenses to accommodate cameras or other equipment covered by this rule. Any proposal by media representatives to modify existing facilities at media expense to accommodate use of equipment in the courtroom shall be submitted to the trial court administrator for the district. A final proposal shall be submitted to the administrative district judge for acceptance, modification or rejection. When planning courtroom construction or remodeling, consideration shall be given to accommodations that will provide broadcast and print media with reasonable access to court proceedings.

(k) The Media/Courts Committee shall evaluate audio/visual coverage on an ongoing basis, and at any time bring forth recommendations to amend this rule.

(l) The request for approval to video record, broadcast or photograph a court proceeding and order granting or denying such request should be in substantially the form approved by the Administrative Director of Courts.

 Camera form: Word

(Adopted March 30, 1999, effective March 30, 1999; amended December 26, 2000, effective January 2, 2001; amended December 6, 2005, effective December 15, 2005; amended August 22, 2007, effective August 22, 2007; amended March 27, 2009, effective March 30, 2009; amended July 13, 2009, effective July 13, 2009; amended December 9, 2009, effective January 1, 2010; amended January 6, 2023, effective January 9, 2023.)

Media coverage of public hearings and appeals before the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals in the Supreme Court courtroom in Boise are subject to the following guidelines:

(a) AUTHORIZATION. Approval to video record or photograph a Supreme Court or Court of Appeals proceeding must be obtained at least one business day in advance of the hearing. Permission must be obtained from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for Idaho Supreme Court proceedings, or the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for Idaho Court of Appeals proceedings, and will be limited to those approved by the respective Court. The request for approval to video record or photograph a court proceeding and order granting or denying such request should be in substantially the form approved by the Administrative Director of Courts.

(l) The above does not apply to the live broadcast of all Supreme Court proceedings provided on an ongoing basis by ldaho Public Television/ldaho In Session. These broadcasts and recordings are deemed approved in advance through adoption of this rule.

(2) As to requests for live coverage of a Supreme Court proceeding, preference will be given to restricting coverage to the Idaho Public Television broadcast, and ldaho Public Television will provide a video and audio feed to other media.

(b) RECORDING. Any recordings or broadcasts must originate from the audio system provided by the Court. No separate mikes will be allowed to be set up in the courtroom. The Court will provide a series of balanced line outlets for use with standard connections to connect to television cameras, radio broadcasting devices and recorders. In the event of demand greater than the outlets provided, media representatives will make pooling arrangements among themselves. No taping or recording of conversations between co-counsel or counsel and client is allowed.

(c) OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDING. The recording machine operated by the Clerk is the only official record of the appeal hearing, and no party shall cite in any court or administrative agency proceeding any other recording of the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals hearings.

(d) MOVEMENT IN COURTROOM. Media representatives are allowed to cover the proceedings from the couftroom floor as long as they remain in the area reserved for the general public and as long as they do not excessively move around the courtroom or assume body positions inappropriate to a courtroom proceeding or otherwise distract from the appellate proceedings.

(e) LIAISON. The Administrative Director of the Courts andlor the Clerk of the Supreme Court, working through the Court Communications Manager, shall maintain communication and liaison with media representatives so as to ensure smooth working relationships and to provide any suggestions to improve these guidelines.

(f) INCORPORATION OF ICAR 45. This rule hereby incorporates all guidelines on equipment, dress, pooling, limits on coverage, and other matters in Idaho Court Administrative Rule 45 that are relevant to appellate proceedings. In cases of conflict, this rule prevails for proceedings held within the Supreme Court courtroom. References to "presiding judge" in ICAR 45 will here mean the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for Idaho Supreme Court proceedings, or the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for ldaho Court of Appeals proceedings.

Camera forms: Word | PDF

(Adopted August 8, 2008, effective August 8, 2008. effective January 1, 2010; amended January 6, 2023, effective January 9, 2023.)

Media coverage of proceedings in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals outside of the Supreme Court courtroom in Boise are subject to the following guidelines:

(a) AUTHORIZATION. Approval to video record, broadcast or photograph a Supreme Court or Court of Appeals proceeding must be obtained at least one business day in advance of the hearing. Permission must be obtained from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for Idaho Supreme Court proceedings, or the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for ldaho Court of Appeals proceedings, and will be limited to those approved by the respective Court. The request for approval to video record, broadcast or photograph a court proceeding and order granting or denying such request should be in substantially the form approved by the Administrative Director of Courts.

(1) The above does not apply to any live broadcast of Supreme Court proceedings provided on an ongoing basis by Idaho Public Television/Idaho In Session. These broadcasts and recordings are deemed approved in advance through adoption of this rule.

(b) BEHAVIOR. Media representatives are allowed to cover the proceedings as long as they remain in the area reserved for the general public, do not excessively move around the courtroom, or assume body positions inappropriate to a courtroom proceeding or otherwise distract from the appellate proceedings.

(c) OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDING. The recording machine operated by the Clerk is the only official record of the appeal hearing, and no party shall cite in any court or administrative agency proceeding any other recording of the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals hearings. No taping or recording of conversations between co-counsel or counsel and client is allowed.

(d) LIAISON. The Clerk of the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals and the Court Communications Manager shall maintain communication and liaison with media representatives so as to ensure smooth working relationships and to provide any suggestions to improve these guidelines.

(e) INCORPORATION OF ICAR 45. This rule hereby incorporates all guidelines on equipment, dress, pooling, limits on coverage, and other matters in Idaho Court Administrative Rule 45 that are relevant to appellate proceedings. In cases of conflict, this rule prevails for proceedings of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. References to "presiding judge" in ICAR 45 will here mean the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for Idaho Supreme Court proceedings, or the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for Idaho Court of Appeals proceedings.

Camera forms: Word | PDF

(Adopted August 8, 2008, effective August 8, 2008. effective January 1, 2010; amended January 6, 2023, effective January 9, 2023.)

Idaho Court Administrative Rule 47. Criminal History Background Checks.

(a) Persons Subject to a Criminal History Background Check. All persons serving in, or applying for, the following positions or appointments must comply with this rule.

(1) Parenting Coordinator, section 32-717D, Idaho Code, and Rule 1002, Idaho Rules of Family Law Procedure,

(2) Domestic Violence Evaluator, Rule 75, Idaho Court Administrative Rules,

(3) Supervised Access Provider, section 32-717E, Idaho Code, and Rule 1003, Idaho Rules of Family Law Procedure,

(4) Guardian Ad Litem program director, staff member, volunteer, and board member, section 16-1632, Idaho Code and Rule 35, Idaho Juveniles Rules,

(5) Family Court Services Coordinator, section 32-1407, Idaho Code, and

(6) Domestic Violence Court Coordinator, section 32-1407, Idaho Code.

A record of all criminal history background checks shall be maintained in the office of the Supreme Court, through the Administrative Office of the Courts. If the applicant has cleared a criminal history check for any position identified in this rule within the past 12 months, the criminal history check may also be used for any other position identified under this rule.

(b) Program or Employer Responsibilities.

The criminal history background check clearance is not a determination of suitability for employment or voluntary appointment. The Administrative Office’s clearance means that a person was found to have no disqualifying crime or relevant record. The programs or employers are responsible for determining the individual’s suitability for employment or volunteer appointments as described in this rule.

(1) Screen Applicants. The program or employer must screen applicants prior to initiating a criminal history and background check in determining suitability of the applicant for employment or voluntary appointment. If the applicant discloses a designated crime or offense as provided in subsection (h) of this rule, or discloses other information that would indicate a risk to the health and safety of children or vulnerable adults, a determination of suitability for appointment or employment should be made during the initial screening of the application.

(2) Ensure Time Frames are Met. The program or employer is responsible for ensuring that the required time frames are met for completion and submission of the application and fingerprints to the Administrative Office as required by this rule or as otherwise provided by law.

(3) Employment or appointment determinations.The program or employer will make a determination as to the ability or risk of the person to provide care or services to children or vulnerable adults.

(4) Discovery of Criminal Conviction or Disqualifying Records After Clearance is Issued. After a clearance is issued, if the employer or program discovers that the applicant may no longer be eligible for clearance due to the existence of either a conviction for a disqualifying offense, or a relevant record listed in this rule, the employer or program is required to report their discovery to the Administrative Office of the Courts. The Administrative Office may compel the applicant to be processed for a new background check under subsection (d) of this rule.

(c) Application for a Criminal History and Background Check. The criminal history check will consist of a self-declaration, fingerprints of the person applying, and information obtained from the following:

(1) Federal Bureau of Investigation,

(2) National Crime Information Center,

(3) Idaho State Police Bureau of Criminal Identification,

(4) State-based court records management systems,

(5) National Sex Offender Registry,

(6) Idaho Child Abuse and Neglect Central Registry, and

(7) as otherwise required by law.

(d) Self-Declaration. Every person subject to this rule must complete a self-declaration form signed under penalty of perjury. The self-declaration authorizes the Supreme Court to obtain and release information without liability. The applicant must provide or disclose the following information on the self-declaration form:

(1) The applicant’s name(s), including any former, maiden or aliases used, address and date of birth which appears on a valid identification document issued by a governmental entity,

(2) A description of all criminal conviction(s) or charges and the circumstances surrounding the incident(s),

(3) Any notice by a state or local agency of substantiated child or substantiated vulnerable adult abuse, neglect, exploitation, or abandonment complaint,

(4) A signed release of information authorizing the Supreme Court, through their Administrative Office of the Courts, to obtain the criminal background check information and release information without liability,

(5) If the person has lived in another country or jurisdiction that is not covered by a national criminal background check under this rule, a criminal records check or a “certificate of good conduct” from the embassy of any country or jurisdiction in which the person has resided within the previous seven (7) years.

The Administrative Director of Courts or designee may inquire or request details regarding any information provided on, or omitted from, the self-declaration form prior to making a determination. The Supreme Court, through its Administrative Office of the Courts, will complete the criminal history check and inform the person and applicable entity of the results.

(e) Failure to Disclose Information. Failure to provide a self-declaration form containing a release of information provision or information required under this rule will result in a denial of the application.

(f) Criminal or Relevant Record - Action Pending.

(1) Notice of Inability to Proceed. When the applicant is identified as having a pending criminal action for a crime or relevant record that may disqualify them from receiving a clearance for the background check, the Administrative Director of Courts or designee may issue a notice of inability to proceed.

(2) Availability to Provide Services. The applicant is not available to provide service when a notice of inability to proceed or denial is issued by the Administrative Director of Courts or designee. Any previous clearance will be revoked.

(3) Reconsideration of Action Pending. In the case of an inability to proceed status, the applicant can submit documentation that the matter has been resolved to the Administrative Director of Courts or designee for reconsideration within one hundred and twenty (120) calendar days from the date of notice. When the Administrative Director of Courts or designee receives this documentation, they will notify the applicant of the reconsideration and issue a clearance or denial. When the Administrative Director of Courts or designee’s reconsideration results in a clearance after review, any previously revoked clearance will be restored.

(g) Updating Criminal History Checks. Unless otherwise required by law or court rule to complete a criminal history check more frequently, every person subject to this rule must complete an updated criminal history check at least every five (5) years. An updated criminal history check must include a self-declaration form, and information as required under subsection (d) of this rule. The Supreme Court through its Administrative Office of the Courts or any appointing court may, at its discretion, require a criminal history check or updated criminal history check of any person subject to this rule at any time. Five (5) years will be calculated from the date of the person's most recent criminal history check approval.

(h) Unconditional Denial.

Persons subject to this rule shall not be eligible to serve if they have pled guilty or been found guilty of one (1) or more of the designated crimes listed below, or their equivalent under the laws of any other jurisdiction, regardless of the form of the judgment or withheld judgment.

(1) Designated Crimes. No exemption shall be granted for any of the following designated crimes:

(A) Armed Robbery, as defined by section 18-6501, Idaho Code,

(B) Arson, as defined by sections 18-801 through 18-805, Idaho Code,

(C) Forcible sexual penetration by use of a foreign object, as defined by section 18-6604, Idaho Code,

(D) Incest, as defined by section 18-6601, Idaho Code,

(E) Injury to a child, felony or misdemeanor, as defined by section 18-1501, Idaho Code,

(F) Kidnapping, as defined by sections 18-4501 through 18-4503, Idaho Code,

(G) Lewd conduct with a minor, as defined by section 18-1508, Idaho Code,

(H) Mayhem, as defined by section 18-5001, Idaho Code,

(I) Murder in any degree, voluntary manslaughter, assault or battery with intent to commit a serious felony, as defined by sections 18-4001, 18-4003, 18-4006, 18-4015, 18-909 and 18-911, Idaho Code,

(J) Poisoning, as defined by sections 18-4014 and 18-5501, Idaho Code,

(K) A felony involving a controlled substance, where the judgment or withheld judgment was entered within seven (7) years preceding the denial,

(L) Possession of sexually exploitative material, as defined by section 18-1507A, Idaho Code,

(M) Rape, as defined by sections 18-6101, Idaho Code,

(N) Felony stalking, as defined by section 18-7905, Idaho Code,

(O) Sale or barter of a child, as defined by section 18-1511, Idaho Code,

(P) Sexual abuse or exploitation of a child, as defined by sections 18-1506, 18-1506A, 18-1507, and 18-1507A, Idaho Code,

(Q) Any felony punishable by death or life imprisonment,

(R) Any felony involving any type or degree of embezzlement, fraud, theft or burglary, where the judgment or withheld judgment was entered within seven (7) years preceding the denial,

(S) Abuse, neglect, exploitation or abandoning of a vulnerable adult, as defined by sections 18-1505, 18-1505A, and 18-1505B Idaho Code,

(T) Attempt, solicitation, or conspiracy to commit any of the designated crimes,

(U) Domestic violence, felony, as defined by section 18-918, Idaho Code

(V) Attempted strangulation, felony, as defined by section 18-923, Idaho Code, or

(W) Aggravated sexual battery, felony, as defined by section 18-925, Idaho Code.

(i) Conditional Denial. Except with respect to any crime which results in an unconditional denial under subsection (h) of this rule, the Administrative Director of Courts or designee may conditionally deny a person’s application if:

(1) the criminal history check reveals a plea, finding or adjudication of guilt to any felony or misdemeanor (excluding traffic violations which do not result in a suspension of the individual's driver's license),

(2) the person has been found to have committed abuse, abandonment or neglect in a child protection or adult protection case,

(3) the person has a pending charge or criminal investigation,

(4) the person appears on the Idaho Child Abuse and Neglect Central Registry,

(5) the person has falsified or omitted information on the self-declaration form, or

(6) the person has a current or past civil protection order or criminal no contact order against him or her that was issued after a hearing to which such person received actual notice and in which such person had the opportunity to participate.

A conditional denial becomes a final unconditional denial within twenty-one (21) days from the date of the conditional denial notice unless, prior to the expiration of this period, the individual requests an exemption review which shall be conducted as provided in subsection (j) of this rule. The twenty-one (21) day period for filing a request for an exemption review may be extended by the Administrative Director of Courts or designee for good cause.

(j) Exemption Review. If an exemption review is requested in accordance with subsection (i) of this rule, the Administrative Director of Courts or designee shall initiate an exemption review of any cause, action, or crime for which a conditional denial was issued under subsection (i) of this rule. The review may consist of an evaluation of the documents and supplemental information provided by the applicant, a telephonic, virtual or in-person interview with the applicant, or any other examination of the applicant’s criminal history background. The Administrative Director of Courts may appoint any authorized designee or designees to conduct any exemption review.

Exemption reviews shall be governed by and conducted as follows.

(1) Scheduling an Exemption Review. Upon receipt of the request for an exemption review, the Administrative Director of Courts or designee shall determine the type of review to be conducted. An exemption review shall be conducted within twenty-one (21) days from the receipt of the request. If an in-person review is scheduled, the applicant shall be provided with at least seven (7) days’ notice of the exemption review date.

(2) Factors to Be Considered. During the review, the following factors shall be considered:

(A) The severity or nature of the crime or other findings,

(B) The period of time since the incident(s) under current review,

(C) The number and pattern of incident(s),

(D) Circumstances surrounding the incident(s) that would help determine the risk of repetition,

(E) Activities since the incident(s) such as continuous employment, education, participation in treatment, payment of restitution, or any other factors which may be evidence of rehabilitation,

(F) Granting of a pardon by the Governor or the President,

(G) The falsification or omission of information on the self-declaration form and other supplemental forms submitted,

(H) The relationship between the crime or finding and the position sought, and

(I) Any other factor deemed relevant.

(3) Decision After Review. A notice of decision shall be issued within twenty-one (21) days of the date of review

(k) Criminal History Records. Criminal history checks done pursuant to this rule become the property of the Supreme Court and shall be held confidential as provided by law or court rule.

(1) Release of Criminal History Checks. A copy of the criminal history check shall be released:

(A) To the person named in the criminal history upon receipt of a written request to the Supreme Court, provided the person also releases the state from all liability; or

(B) In response to a subpoena issued by a court of competent jurisdiction.

(2) Release of Information Obtained Through a Criminal History Check. Information may be released, upon written request or upon signed release by the person who is the subject of the criminal history check, to:

(A) any judge considering appointment of the person; and

(B) as otherwise required by law.

(3) Retention of Records. The criminal history record, supplemental documentation received, notes from the review, and the decision shall be retained by the Supreme Court for a period of not less than six (6) years after the criminal background check is completed.

(4) Use and Dissemination Restrictions for FBI Criminal Identification Records. According to the provisions set forth in 28 CFR 50.12, the Supreme Court shall:

(A) Notify the person fingerprinted that the fingerprints will be used to check the criminal history records of the FBI;

(B) In determining the suitability for providing services or employment, provide the person the opportunity to complete or challenge the accuracy of the information contained in the FBI identification record;

(C) Afford the person twenty-one (21) days to correct or complete the FBI identification record or to decline to do so; and

(D) Advise the person who wishes to correct the FBI identification record that the procedures for changing, correcting, or updating are set forth in 28 CFR 16.34.

(l) Confidentiality. Before any information obtained in a criminal history check may be released to the person who is the subject of the record, to another governmental agency or to a private person or organization, the Idaho Supreme Court will comply with federal Public Law 103-209 and 92-544.

(Adopted December 19, 2024, effective January 1, 2025.)

(a) In the event of an emergency or threatened emergency, the Administrative Director of the Courts or his or her designee, or where practicable, after consultation with the Administrative Director of the Courts or his or her designee, the administrative judge, or his or her designee if the administrative judge is unavailable, may order the closure of a district court and related offices, including the district court clerkís office, until the safe operations of the court and its offices can be restored.  Whenever a threat poses an immediate risk of harm to court personnel or members of the public, court operations shall be suspended and court facilities and personnel shall immediately be evacuated pending further directive of the administrative judge or designee.  If the closure order is issued by the administrative judge or his or her designee, the person issuing the order shall promptly notify the Supreme Court of the emergency closure.  When the conditions creating the emergency have passed, the administrative judge or designee, in cooperation with the Administrative Office of the Courts, shall provide for the immediate resumption of court business by the most expeditious and practical means possible, which may include alternate operational hours or moving court operations to alternate facilities, if necessary.

(b) “Emergency or threatened emergency” includes, but is not limited to, any occurrence or threatened occurrence, whether natural, man-made, or technological, that causes or threatens to cause:
      (1) the destruction of court facilities, including the offices of the district court clerk, or substantial damage to such facilities;
      (2) an interruption in the performance of court operations; or
      (3) harm to the safety or health of court personnel, including personnel of the district court clerk’s office, or other persons using court facilities.
   A technological occurrence constituting an emergency includes any failure or disruption of the court management system or other court technology that causes or threatens to cause an interruption in the performance of court operations.

(c) The district court clerk shall maintain a record of the date and time of any emergency closure of the clerkís office and the date and time of its reopening.  This record and a copy of the order closing court offices and operations shall be forwarded to the Supreme Court.

(d) In the event the last day for filing any document, holding any hearing, or doing any other thing or matter in any court falls on a day when the court and district court clerk’s office are closed under the provisions of this rule for any period of time, the time for filing, hearing or doing any other thing or matter shall be extended until the end of the next business day on which the court and district court clerk’s office are open. 

(e) The administrative judge shall designate a person in each county to prepare and maintain a current written disaster emergency plan relating to district court operations which shall include a coordinated response with the board of county commissioners and other local officials for the prompt restoration of judicial services after an emergency closure of court operations.  The written disaster emergency plan relating to district court operations shall be approved by the administrative judge prior to its final adoption.

(Adopted June 17, 2002, effective July 1, 2002; amended November 14, 2016, effective December 1, 2016.)

(a) 'Electronic devices,' as used in this rule, means cell phones, personal computers, personal digital assistants, and other similar devices capable of transmitting, receiving, recording or storing messages, images, sounds, data or other information by electronic means.

(b) Unless the administrative district judge or the presiding judge in a case issues an order prohibiting or restricting the carrying or use of electronic devices:

(1) Electronic devices may be carried in court facilities or courtrooms.  

(2) Electronic devices may be used for the purpose of note taking in courtrooms or court facilities, and such notes may be transmitted from the courtroom or court facility.

(c) Electronic devices may not be used for the recording or transmission of sounds or images in or from courtrooms except as permitted under Rule 45, Rule 46a, or Rule 46b of the Idaho Court Administrative Rules.  The transmission of sounds or images in or from court facilities outside of the courtroom shall be permitted only when consistent with the provisions of Rule 45 of the Idaho Court Administrative Rules and with any orders issued by the administrative district judge pursuant to Rule 45(e) of the Idaho Court Administrative Rules.  If an electronic device is capable of recording or transmitting sounds or images, these functions shall not be activated while the electronic device is in the courtroom unless approval for the recording or transmission of sounds or images has been obtained pursuant to Rule 45, Rule 46a, or Rule 46b of the Idaho Court Administrative Rules.

(d) Electronic devices shall not be used in a manner that interferes with court proceedings or the work of court personnel.  Any electronic device capable of emitting sounds that would be audible in the courtroom must be set to a silent or vibrate mode.  Cell phone calls shall neither be made from nor answered in the courtroom.

(e) The Administrative District Judge or the presiding judge in any case may restrict the carrying or use of electronic devices in the courtroom by court personnel.

(f) Attorneys in a matter before the court and their employees and agents may make reasonable and lawful use of electronic devices in connection with the proceeding unless such use is restricted or prohibited by the Administrative District Judge or presiding judge.

(g) Jurors shall not possess or carry electronic devices during deliberations.  The use of electronic devices by jurors or prospective jurors during their jury service shall be subject to other restrictions as provided by court rules, orders, or instructions.

(h) The provisions of this rule, and of any order prohibiting or restricting the use of electronic devices, shall apply to all members of the public including members of the news media, and shall be communicated to members of the news media and to members of the public entering court facilities by signs or other appropriate means. 

(i) Any person who violates the provisions of this rule or any order of the Administrative District Judge or order of the court regarding the possession or use of electronic devices may be found in contempt of court.  Court personnel may confiscate and retain an electronic device that is used in violation of this rule or of such order, subject to further order of the court or until the owner of the electronic device leaves the building. 

(Adopted November 29, 2012, effective January 1, 2013)

Idaho Court Administrative Rule 50. Services Provided to People with Disabilities.

(a) Statement of Policy. It is the policy of the Supreme Court to ensure equal access to and full participation in court programs, court services, and court activities by qualified individuals with disabilities, including attorneys, parties, probationers, witnesses, victims, potential jurors, and observers of court proceedings. 

(b) Definitions: For purposes of these rules, the following words have the following meanings:

(1) The term “Idaho Courts” is broadly defined as:  The Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, the district courts, the magistrate’s divisions of the district courts, the counties with reference to their responsibilities for funding district and magistrate courts, and cities with regard to funding the magistrate division as provided by law.

(2) Under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, an “individual with a disability” is defined as an individual who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities, has a record of such impairment, or is regarded as having such impairment. 

(3) To be a “qualified” individual with a disability, the individual with a disability must meet the essential eligibility requirements for the program or services offered by the court with or without reasonable accommodation. 

(4) “Major life activities” include functions such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working. 

(5) “Auxiliary aids” include such services or devices as qualified interpreters, assistive listening headsets, television captioning and decoders, telecommunications devices for deaf persons (TDDs), videotext displays, readers, taped texts, Brailed materials, and large print materials. Examples of auxiliary aids or services of a personal nature not covered by this policy include prescription eyeglasses, hearing aids, wheelchairs, and/or personal medical or attendant care. 

(6) “Service animals” are defined as dogs that are individually trained to do work or perform tasks for people with disabilities. The ADA does not restrict the type of dog breeds that can be service animals. Service animals are working animals, not pets. The work or task a dog has been trained to provide must be directly related to the person’s disability. Dogs whose sole function is to provide comfort or emotional support do not qualify as service animals under the ADA. Additionally, miniature horses that have been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for people with disabilities are also defined as service animals. Miniature horses generally range in height from 24 to 34 inches in height and generally weigh between 70 and 100 lbs. 

(c) Administrative Responsibilities. District Trial Court Administrators and the Administrative Office of the Courts shall administer the court rule for providing services and auxiliary aids to people with disabilities throughout the Idaho courts. The Clerk of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals and the Administrative Office of the Courts shall administer the court rule for appellate cases.

(d) ADA Coordinator. The Idaho Supreme Court has appointed the Human Resources Director of the Idaho Courts as the ADA Coordinator. The ADA Coordinator will provide training and resources to justices, district judges, magistrate judges, trial court administrators, and court personnel regarding effective communication and access to the courts.  

(e) Reasonable Accommodation. The Idaho Courts will provide reasonable accommodations to people with disabilities who have requested accommodation to have equal access and full participation in court proceedings, programs, and services, including any necessary auxiliary aids or services, excluding devices of a personal nature, for the duration of the time period for which accommodation is needed. Access to services must be provided unless the court can demonstrate that the accommodation would result in a fundamental alteration of the nature of a service, program, or activity or cause undue financial or administrative burden. 

(1) Requests for reasonable accommodation should be submitted to the Trial Court Administrator, or for appellate cases, to the Clerk of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. The request should identify the particular court program or service for which accommodation is sought, the date, time and location where the accommodation is needed, a description of the disability and the type of accommodation being requested. Reasonable notice must be given to consider an accommodation request without causing undue disruption to the court proceeding. If the request concerns a particular court proceeding, the request should be made a minimum of two (2) business days in advance, if practicable, to allow consideration of the request and to arrange for reasonable accommodation. 

(2) Once the request for accommodation has been received, the district Trial Court Administrator, or the Clerk of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals as appropriate, and the ADA Coordinator will review the request and engage in an interactive process with the requestor to provide reasonable accommodation. Primary consideration will be given to the aid or service requested, however if that aid or service results in an undue burden or fundamental alteration of the court proceeding, services, or programs, an equally effective alternative method may be suggested. The Trial Court Administrator, or the Clerk of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, will notify the requestor whether the accommodation has been approved or denied. If the request is approved the accommodation will be provided. If the requestor disagrees with the decision, a grievance may be filed.

(f) Service Animals. The Idaho Courts shall make reasonable modifications to its policies, practices, and procedures to permit the use of service animals by people with disabilities. Service animals are allowed to accompany people with disabilities in all areas of the facility where the public is normally allowed to go. Service animals must be under the control of their handler at all times. Service animals must be harnessed, leashed, or tethered, unless these devices interfere with the service animal’s work or the individual’s disability prevents using these devices. In that case, the individual must maintain control of the animal through voice, signal, or other effective controls. Service animals must be housebroken. 

(g) Grievance Procedure. The Idaho Courts establishes this grievance procedure for anyone who wishes to file a grievance alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in court proceedings, provision of services, and programs of the Idaho Courts. 

(1) The grievance shall be submitted by the requestor and/or his or her designee to the ADA Coordinator as soon as possible but not later than thirty (30) calendar days after the alleged violation.  A copy of the grievance shall be provided to the Trial Court Administrator or the Clerk of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. 

Within fifteen (15) calendar days after the receipt of the grievance, the ADA Coordinator will confer with the requestor to discuss the alleged violation and possible resolution. Within fifteen (15) calendar days after the meeting, the ADA Coordinator will respond in writing and, where appropriate, in a format accessible to the requestor, such as large print, Braille, or audio tape. The response will explain the position of the Idaho Courts and offer options for substantive resolution of the grievance. 

(2) In the event the complaint cannot be resolved by the ADA Coordinator, further appeal may be made to the Administrative Director of the Courts. The requestor shall submit their appeal to the Administrative Director of the Courts within fifteen (15) calendar days of receiving the written decision by the ADA Coordinator. Upon receipt of the appeal, the Administrative Director of the Courts will review the alleged violation as well as the proposed resolution and within fifteen (15) calendar days, provide the requestor with a written decision. 

All grievances received by the ADA Coordinator and/or the Administrative Director of the Courts and the corresponding responses to the grievances shall be maintained by the Administrative Office of the Courts for a minimum period of three years. 

(h) Communication. The Idaho Courts shall post information regarding reasonable accommodation, grievance procedures, and resources for individuals with disabilities on the Idaho Supreme Court website.

(Adopted May 24, 2016, effective May 24, 2016).

Idaho Court Administrative Rule 52. Court Interpreters 

(a) Statement of Policy. The Supreme Court is committed to removing barriers that hinder equal access to justice by individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP). This commitment serves the Court’s interest in ensuring accurate communication in court proceedings, protecting the integrity of evidence, and providing language access policies, services, and resources that enhance the quality and availability of interpreting and translation services in Idaho courts. The Court is committed to taking all reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to its courts for all individuals, regardless of national origin, ethnicity, or limited ability to read, write, speak, hear, or understand the English language.

(b) Scope. This rule applies to court interpreters who provide spoken language interpretation for the courts. This rule does not apply to interpreters for the deaf, deaf-blind, and hard of hearing, except that all interpreters for the deaf, deaf-blind, and hard of hearing will submit the oath in accordance with subsection (f) of this rule and may be subject to subsection (g) regarding removal in an individual case. The courts will utilize the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf or other court recognized certifying bodies for court interpreters for the deaf, deaf-blind, and hard of hearing. The cost for interpreter services for all interpreters will be paid in accordance with subsection (h).

(c) Definitions. For the purpose of these rules, the following words have the following meanings:

(1) "Appointing authority" means a district or magistrate judge, including pro tem and senior judges within the scope of their appointments, or the judge's designee.

(2) "Bilingual employee" means an employee who has demonstrated proficiency in both English and one other language. A bilingual employee may provide court operations in both languages but, without additional interpreter credentials, is not qualified to serve as a court interpreter.

(3) "Certified interpreter" means an individual who has:

(A) completed an Administrative Office of the Court’s (AOC) approved court interpretation introduction class; 

(B) completed the ethics review and written exam prep-class;

(C) passed the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) written exam, with a score of 80 percent or higher; and,

(D) passed the NCSC oral certification exam, with:

(i) a score of 70 percent or higher on the simultaneous and consecutive portions;

(ii) an average score of 70 percent across both sight-English and sight-foreign; and,

(iii) a minimum score of 65 percent in both sight translations.

(4) "Certified – Master Level interpreter" means an individual who has passed the federal court interpreter certification exam, or:

(A) completed an AOC-approved court interpretation introduction class; 

(B) completed the ethics review and written exam prep-class;

(C) passed the NCSC written exam with a score of 80 percent or higher; and,

(D) passed the NCSC oral certification exam in one testing cycle, with:

(i) a score of 80 percent or higher on the simultaneous and consecutive portions;

(ii) an average score of 80 percent for both sight-English and sight-foreign; and,

(iii) a minimum score of 80 percent in both sight translations.

(5) "Conditionally approved interpreter" means an individual who has:

(A) completed an AOC-approved court interpretation introduction class; 

(B) completed the ethics review and written exam prep-class;

(C) passed the NCSC written exam with a score of 80 percent or higher; and,

(D) received an overall score of 55 percent or higher on the NCSC oral certification exam, with no single score falling below a 50 percent, including on the simultaneous, consecutive, and both sight-English and sight-foreign translation portions.

An individual may fall under this level of qualification for a period of two calendar years, after which they must retake the entire NCSC oral certification exam to remain on the roster.

(6) "Court operations" means services and programs conducted by the local court, local administrative offices, that remain within the overall responsibility of the Supreme Court. Court operations are intended to be distinct from a “court proceeding” which is defined below.

(7) "Court proceeding" means any civil, criminal, domestic relations, juvenile, traffic, or other in-court proceeding in which an individual with limited English proficiency (LEP) is a party in interest, witness, or crime victim.

(8) "Limited English Proficient (LEP)" means an individual does not speak English as his or her primary language and has a limited ability to read, speak, write, or understand the English language.

(9) "Party in interest" means an individual involved in a court proceeding who is a named party, who will be bound by the decision or action, or who is foreclosed from pursuing his or her rights by the decision or action which may be taken in the proceeding. A party in interest also includes the parent(s) or legal guardian(s) of a juvenile, minor child, or an individual with a disability.

(10) "Roster" is a list of court interpreters maintained by the Supreme Court Administrative Office of the Courts, who meet the qualifications under this rule to provide interpreter services for the courts.

(11) "Registered interpreter" means an interpreter for a language for which an NCSC oral certification exam does not exist, yet the individual has:

(A) completed an AOC-approved court interpretation introduction class; 

(B) completed the ethics review class and written exam prep-class;

(C) passed the NCSC written exam with a score of 80 percent or higher; and,

(D) passed an oral proficiency exam and other language proficiency assessment.

(12) "Witness" means anyone who testifies in any court proceeding.

(d) Implementing Responsibilities.

The Supreme Court, through the Administrative Office of the Courts, shall administer the Court Interpreter Training and Certification Program. The Administrative Office of the Courts shall establish programs and develop resources for the improvement of court interpreting services, including training and certification of interpreters, development and maintenance of a program policy manual, maintaining and distributing a roster of court interpreters, and collecting and analyzing statistics or other data pertinent to interpreter utilization.

(e) Priority of Appointment for Interpreters.

(1) Subject to subsection (e)(2) of this rule, an interpreter shall be appointed when the appointing authority determines that a party in interest, witness, or crime victim does not communicate in or understand the English language sufficiently to permit effective participation in a court proceeding.

(2) In any court proceeding in which an interpreter is required, the appointing authority shall appoint an interpreter according to the following priority:

(A) Certified – Master Level;

(B) Certified interpreter;

(C) Conditionally approved interpreter; or

(D) For a language for which there is no oral certification exam available from the NCSC, a Registered interpreter.

(3) The appointing authority may appoint an interpreter of lower priority on the foregoing list when:

(A) the interpreter is employed by the State or an Idaho county, and, given the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the proceeding, use of an interpreter having lower priority will not impair the ability of the individual with LEP to have meaningful access to court proceedings, programs, services, and activities; or

(B) when good cause exists. A good cause determination includes, but is not limited to, a determination that:

(i) The services of an interpreter of higher priority are not reasonably available to the appointing authority, and, given the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the proceeding and the potential penalty or consequences involved, use of an interpreter having lower priority will not impair the ability of the individual with LEP to have meaningful access to court proceedings, programs, services, and activities; or

(ii) The current roster of certified or registered interpreters maintained by the Administrative Office of the Courts does not include an interpreter certified or registered in the language spoken by the individual with LEP.

The appointing authority is not required to articulate the basis for appointment under this rule in a court proceeding unless the appointment of an interpreter is challenged. If the appointment of an interpreter is challenged, the court shall make a determination on the record as to whether the appointment of the interpreter conforms with the provisions of this rule.

(4) In extraordinary circumstances, upon a finding by the appointing authority that no roster interpreter is available, and that it is necessary to conduct a court proceeding before an interpreter is likely to become available, the appointing authority may appoint an individual as interpreter if the appointing authority finds that such individual is able to interpret from English to the language of the individual with LEP and from the language of that individual into English. The appointing authority may not appoint bilingual employees for court proceedings unless good cause is stated on the record. The appointing authority shall not appoint or use family, friends, companions, untrained, or biased individuals, to serve as an interpreter in a court proceeding other than for brief and simple communications such as to reschedule the court proceeding.

(5) Family, friends, companions, untrained, or biased individuals should not be used as an interpreter for court operations other than for brief and simple communications.

(f) Interpreter Oath.

All court interpreters, before commencing their duties, shall take the following oath:

"Do you solemnly swear or affirm that you will interpret and/or translate accurately, completely, and impartially, using your best skill and judgment in accordance with the standards prescribed by law and the Idaho Code of Professional Responsibility for Interpreters in the Judiciary?"

A district judge, magistrate judge, or other individual authorized to administer oaths, will administer the oath to an interpreter on the record, prior to the start of the court proceeding for which the interpreter is interpreting unless the court interpreter is employed by the State or an Idaho county and is listed on the roster. Court interpreters on the roster shall also file a written oath with the Administrative Office of the Courts. The written oath shall remain in effect for 2 years unless the interpreter is removed under subsection (g) of this rule.

(g) Removal of an Interpreter in an Individual Case.

Any of the following actions shall be grounds for an appointing authority to remove an interpreter from a court proceeding:

(1) failing to interpret adequately;

(2) knowingly and willfully making false interpretation while serving in an official capacity;

(3) knowingly and willfully disclosing confidential or privileged information obtained while serving in an official capacity;

(4) failing to appear as scheduled;

(5) misrepresentation of credentials or other material misstatement of fact relative to appointment as an interpreter;

(6) removal from the roster of court interpreters;

(7) failing to follow other standards prescribed by law and the Idaho Code of Professional Responsibility for Interpreters in the Judiciary.

If an interpreter is removed from a court proceeding, the appointing authority or Trial Court Administrator shall inform the Supreme Court Language Access Coordinator of the removal.

(h) Cost of Interpreter Services.

In all court proceedings in which an interpreter is appointed, the Supreme Court shall determine a reasonable fee for the interpreter's services, which shall be paid out of the district court fund or paid by the county as prescribed by law. In no circumstances shall the individual with LEP be responsible for paying interpreter services.

(Adopted September 25, 1998; effective November 1, 1998; amended December 13, 2004, effective December 15, 2004; amended August 4, 2005, effective August 15, 2005; amended September 30, 2008, effective August 28, 2008; amended April 15, 2024; effective July 1, 2024; amended February 5, 2026, effective February 5, 2026.)

Rule 52.1. Court Interpreters- Discipline

(a) Purpose

(1) This rule establishes a quality control process for spoken language interpreting services offered in the courts.

(2) This rule will assist the Administrative Office of the Courts in maintaining the rosters of certified - master level, certified, registered, or conditionally approved interpreters and will allow for revocation or suspension of a certification or roster status if a complaint is upheld.

(b) Scope

(1) This rule applies to all court interpreters who provide spoken language interpretation for the courts.

(2) This rule does not apply to court interpreters for the deaf, deaf-blind, and hard of hearing, except that all interpreters for the deaf, deaf-blind, and hard of hearing will submit the oath in accordance with I.C.A.R. 52 and may be subject to removal in accordance with that rule. The courts will utilize the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID) or other court recognized certifying bodies to access court interpreters. For these interpreters, individuals who wish to file a complaint may file a complaint with RID and provide a copy to the Administrative Director of the Courts or designee.

(3) This rule does not apply to bilingual staff employed by the state or any Idaho county who are subject to the terms and conditions of their employment.

(c) Grounds for Discipline

The following actions or omissions constitute misconduct and may be grounds for discipline of a court interpreter, including, but not limited to, revocation or suspension of a certification or roster status:

(1) violation of any federal, state, or local criminal code when such offense adversely affects the interpreter's ability or fitness to perform court interpreter duties or may have an adverse effect on the administration of justice or public if the interpreter continues to provide services in the courts;

(2) fraud, dishonesty, or corruption related to the functions and duties of a court interpreter;

(3) knowing and willful disclosure of confidential or privileged information obtained while serving as an interpreter in an official capacity;

(4) incompetence, or unprofessional, or unethical behavior;

(5) violation of the Idaho Code of Professional Responsibility for court interpreters or any other court policy, procedure, or order, including engaging in conduct that constitutes discrimination or harassment;

(6) repeated failure to appear as scheduled without good cause;

(7) noncompliance with any continuing education requirements, or nonpayment of any required renewal fees;

(8) misrepresentation of credentials or other material misstatement of fact relative to appointment as an interpreter, or to an application for certification;

(9) failing to follow other orders or standards prescribed by law; or

(10) failing to disclose a felony conviction or serious and violent misdemeanor charge.

(d) Complaint Submission and Review

(1) Submission of Complaint

Anyone with knowledge of alleged interpreter misconduct may submit a complaint against a court interpreter.

(A) A complaint must be submitted in writing within 180 days of the discovery of facts constituting the alleged misconduct to one of the following points of contact:

(i) Email: languageaccess@idcourts.net

(ii) Mail or in person:

Statewide Language Access Office
Idaho Supreme Court
P.O. Box 83720
451 W. State Street
Boise, ID 83720-0101

(B) The complaint may be submitted in one of the following formats:

(i) "Language Access Complaint Form" available at: COURT INTERPRETER COMPLAINT FORM (idaho.gov)

(ii) Document stating, to the extent known:

a. date, time, and location (including judicial district and county) of the alleged misconduct;

b. case name and docket number of the proceeding in which the alleged misconduct occurred, if applicable;

c. description of the alleged misconduct and why the complainant believes it was improper; and,

d. name(s), title(s), and telephone number(s) of potential witnesses.

(C) The complainant may submit the complaint in his or her preferred language.

(2) Review of Complaint

The Language Access Coordinator (LA Coordinator) or the LA Coordinator's designee will review the complaint within a reasonable amount of time, not to exceed 14 days from receipt, to determine whether the allegations, if true, would be grounds for discipline.

(A) If the LA Coordinator determines that the complaint does not allege misconduct that, if true, would be grounds for discipline, the LA Coordinator will forward the complaint and assessment to the Director of the Court Management Division (CMD Director).

(i) If the CMD Director agrees that the complaint does not allege misconduct that, if true, would be grounds for discipline, the LA Coordinator will dismiss the complaint and notify the complainant in writing.

(ii) If the CMD Director determines that the complaint alleges misconduct that, if true, would be grounds for discipline and decides further action or review is needed, the complaint will be forwarded to the Director of Human Resources (HR Director) or the HR Director's designee for review and investigation.

(B) If the LA Coordinator determines that the complaint alleges misconduct that, if true, would be grounds for discipline, the LA Coordinator will forward the complaint and a recommendation to the CMD Director. The CMD Director will review the complaint and recommendation, and forward the information, along with any additional recommendations to the HR Director for review and/or investigation.

(e) Investigation and Findings

(1) Investigation

(A) Notice. Upon receipt of the request to investigate, the HR Director will provide the interpreter with a copy of the complaint and an opportunity to respond. The review and investigation shall be completed within 35 days of receipt of the request to investigate.

(B) Interim Suspension. In the interest of the administration of justice or the public, the Supreme Court, may suspend the interpreter from working for the courts during an investigation or until a final determination is made. The Supreme Court will notify the interpreter, in writing, of such suspension.

(C) Response from Interpreter. Within 14 days of receipt of notice from the HR Director, the interpreter may submit any relevant evidence or information in writing to the HR Director. The HR Director will review all the information provided and will include any response from the interpreter in the investigative report.

(D) Meeting with Interpreter and/or Witnesses. The HR Director may conduct meetings with the interpreter, complainant, and witnesses. Meetings may occur in-person, over the telephone, or video conferencing. The HR Director may contact witnesses and give evidence the weight they deem appropriate. Meetings are confidential, unless otherwise requested by the interpreter and agreed to by the HR Director.< /p>

(E) Report of Investigation. At the conclusion of the investigation, the HR Director will submit findings and recommendations to the CMD Director for review which includes specific factual findings as to whether misconduct occurred that would be grounds for discipline.

(2) Findings

(A) No Grounds. If upon review of the Report of Investigation, the CMD Director determines that no grounds for discipline exist, the CMD Director shall dismiss the complaint and notify the interpreter and the complainant in writing. The notification shall include an explanation of the reason(s) for the determination.

(B) Additional Information. If the CMD Director determines that additional information is required prior to making a determination, a written request shall be sent to the interpreter with specific questions posed. All questions must be answered and returned within 7 days. If the interpreter fails to respond in writing within the allotted time, the CMD Director may determine that grounds for discipline exist and, exercising discretion, proceed with the sanctions outlined in subsection (h) of this rule.

(C) Grounds for Discipline Present. If upon review of the Report of Investigation, the CMD Director determines by a preponderance of the evidence that grounds for discipline exist, the CMD Director shall send to the interpreter in writing, a summary of the allegation(s) contained in the complaint, the relevant investigative findings, citations to any rules or procedures which were violated, and the sanctions deemed appropriate by the CMD Director. The CMD Director's determination shall be made within 14 days of receipt of the Report of Investigation.

(f) Hearing

(1) If the interpreter contests the CMD Director's determination, the interpreter may file an appeal with the Administrative Director of the Courts and request a hearing before the Court Interpreter Professional Conduct Subcommittee (Subcommittee). The Administrative Director of the Courts will request that the Supreme Court appoint an advisor to assist the Subcommittee. The advisor will assist the Subcommittee in conducting the hearing and may also question any witnesses appearing before the Subcommittee.

(2) Hearing Procedures.

(A) Notice of Appeal. The appeal and any request for hearing must be made within 14 days of receipt of the CMD Director's findings and recommended sanctions. Failure to file an appeal within the allotted timeframe will result in a final determination and imposition of the recommended sanctions.

(B) Hearing Discretionary. The Subcommittee, at its discretion, may set the matter for hearing or decide the matter based on the complaint, investigative report, and the information submitted without a hearing. If a request for hearing is granted, the hearing must take place within 42 days of the written request.

(C) Discovery. Discovery shall not be permitted.

(D) Hearings Recorded. All hearings shall be recorded electronically, and shall be a closed proceeding with the exception of the complainant who may attend with legal counsel.

(E) Legal Representation. The interpreter may be represented by legal counsel at his/her own expense.

(F) Evidence. Idaho Rules of Evidence shall not apply. The Subcommittee, in its discretion, may consider any evidence presented, including declarations and affidavits, giving such evidence the weight deemed appropriate. At the hearing, the CMD Director, the complainant, and the interpreter shall be afforded the opportunity to introduce documents, other relevant evidence, and present witness testimony. The Subcommittee may, at its discretion, call witnesses, consider or clarify any relevant evidence presented, giving such evidence the weight deemed appropriate.

(g) Final Determination

(1) If no hearing is held, within 14 days of the Notice of Appeal, the Subcommittee shall issue written findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court will consider the findings and issue a final determination, within 21 days of receipt of the findings.

(2) If a hearing is held, within 21 days of the conclusion of the hearing, the Subcommittee shall issue its written findings and recommendations to the Supreme Court for a final determination. The Supreme Court will consider the findings and issue a final determination, within 21 days of receipt of the findings.

(3) The Subcommittee shall take action based on majority vote of its members.

(4) The Supreme Court shall advise the interpreter and the complainant of its final determination in writing with a copy to the Administrative Director of the Courts. If the Supreme Court's decision includes sanctions against the interpreter, consistent with subsection (h) of this rule, the Supreme Court shall specifically enumerate the sanctions, the reasons for such sanctions, and the length of the sanctions. If the sanctions include suspension or revocation of the interpreter's court certification, roster status, or placing the interpreter at a lower qualification or skill level on the roster, the Supreme Court shall specify the conditions and timeframe within which the interpreter may apply for reinstatement of his/her prior certification or roster status.

(5) The Supreme Court's determination shall be final and not subject to further review or appeal.

(h) Sanctions

If the Subcommittee finds by a preponderance of evidence that there are grounds for discipline under subsection (c) of this rule, the Subcommittee will recommend to the Supreme Court that it impose such sanctions as deemed appropriate. In determining what sanction is appropriate, the Subcommittee and the Supreme Court will consider the nature and seriousness of the misconduct, any pattern of misconduct, the effect of the misconduct on the court system and/or the complainant, the amount of experience the interpreter has as a court interpreter, and any other mitigating or aggravating information presented. Sanctions that may be imposed include, but are not limited to:

(1) private reprimand;

(2) public reprimand;

(3) corrective action with which the interpreter must comply in order to remain on the roster;

(4) requirement of completion of education courses; or

(5) requirement that the interpreter work with a mentor, or that the interpreter's work be supervised.

(6) requirement that one or more parts of the interpreter court certification or ethics examination be retaken;

(7) placement of the interpreter at a lower qualification or skill level on the roster;

(8) limitation of the type of court hearings for which the interpreter may interpret; and/or,

(9) suspension or revocation of court interpreter certification or roster status.

(i) Reinstatement

Interpreters who are sanctioned for misconduct may apply in writing to the Supreme Court for reinstatement of their certification or roster status in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the final determination. The Supreme Court has sole discretion in granting or denying reinstatement, including the discretion to impose further conditions on reinstatement.

(j) Confidentiality

(1) All complaints and investigations shall be confidential in accordance with I.C.A.R. 32, except that when sanctions are imposed, the final determination, including grounds for the sanction(s) and the facts cited in support of the determination, shall be made available to the public upon request.

(2) The Administrative Office of the Courts will provide information in accordance with I.C.A.R. 32 to judicial officers, Trial Court Administrators, and court coordinators concerning sanctions imposed against interpreters.

(Adopted June 3, 2024; effective July 1, 2024.)

(a) Statement of Policy: It is the policy of the Supreme Court to ensure access to the courts by all persons, including those who may not have the benefit of legal representation. The purpose of this rule is to provide a means for assisting persons who do not have legal representation, by authorizing Court Assistance Officers to provide those litigants with educational materials, court approved forms, limited assistance in completing court forms, and information about court procedures so they might better understand the legal requirements of the court system, and to provide referrals to legal, community and social services organizations and resources providing similar assistance.  

(b) Definitions: For the purposes of this rule, the following words have the following meanings:

(1) 'Court Assistance Officer' is a person qualified under guidelines adopted by the Supreme Court to provide a full range of court assistance services.

(2) 'Deputy Clerk' is an employee of the District Court Clerk who is assigned the responsibility of providing a limited range of court assistance services under guidelines adopted by the Supreme Court, as part of his or her overall clerical duties.    

(3) 'Project Director' is person appointed by the Administrative Director of the Courts to oversee and coordinate the statewide operation of court assistance services.

(c) Court Assistance Services: Full or limited court assistance services shall be provided in every county.  

(1)  Where feasible, those services should be provided through a court assistance office staffed with a full or part time Court Assistance Officer, who has the training to provide a full range of court assistance services and referrals under guidelines established by the Supreme Court. 

(2)  Where the appointment of a Court Assistance Officer is not feasible, the District Court Clerk shall appoint a Deputy Clerk to provide limited court assistance services as defined by the Supreme Courtís guidelines.  The Project Director shall be notified of the assignment, and provide input on the selection if requested.

(d) Assignment of Court Assistance Officers: A Court Assistance Officer may be an employee of the District Court Clerk, or another county employee who is under the direction of the Administrative District Judge or Trial Court Administrator, or an independent contractor retained by the Supreme Court who is under the direction of the Administrative District Judge or Trial Court Administrator.  The Administrative District Judge or Trial Court Administrator, the Project Director, and the District Court Clerk shall provide advice and consent in the selection and assignment of Court Assistance Officers under guidelines for   minimum qualifications established by the Supreme Court for that position.  

(e) Management of Daily Operations: The Administrative Judge or Trial Court Administrator shall be responsible for managing and supervising the day-to-day activities of Court Assistance Officers who have been retained by the Court or are county employees other than deputy clerks.   The District Court Clerk shall be responsible for managing and supervising the day-to-day activities of Court Assistance Officers who are employees of the District Court Clerk, and Deputy Clerks who provide limited court assistance services.  The Administrative District Judge or Trial Court Administrator, and the Program Director, may, from time to time, provide input on the performance of employees of the District Court Clerk providing court assistance services, which shall be considered by the District Court Clerk, in good faith.

(f) Policy and Rules of Conduct: The Supreme Court shall establish guidelines for court assistance services which specifically define the types of referrals, instructions, forms, educational materials, and information about the court and court processes, which may be provided by a Court Assistance Officer or Deputy Clerk, as well as requirements for education and training of court assistance personnel.  

(g) Unauthorized Practice of Law: It is the policy of the Supreme Court to encourage the use of attorneys whenever possible.  The materials and assistance provided through court assistance services are not intended as a substitute for legal advice.  Services, materials or information provided by Court Assistance Officers or Deputy Clerks providing court assistance services under the guidelines established by the Supreme Court shall not constitute the unauthorized practice of law.

(h) Schedule of Fees: Charges for forms, materials and other services provided under this rule shall not exceed the amounts defined in the following Cost Recovery Fee Schedule, adopted by the Supreme Court pursuant to the authority of section 32-1406, Idaho Code.  Fees collected for court assistance services shall be distributed as required by section 32-1406, Idaho Code.

COST RECOVERY FEE SCHEDULE 

FOR COURT ASSISTANCE SERVICES

Pursuant to I.C.A.R. 53

Adopted by the Idaho Supreme Court August 15, 2005

The fees set forth are the maximum amounts which may be charged.  There is no charge for forms downloaded from court websites.

Forms which are available as a packet include all forms necessary for completing the stated action if the matter is uncontested, and includes form review to ensure the forms are completed properly. The costs for form packets are set forth below. The maximum fee for forms not purchased as part of a packet is $.25 per page.  The maximum fee for form review when forms are not purchased as a packet is $5.00.  A waiver of fees shall be issued if it is shown to the Court Assistance Officerís satisfaction that the applicantís household income is less than 125% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines.  Additional cost recovery charges may be assessed if forms are combined with other family court services and/or workshops.  

(i) Waiver of Fees: Fees for court assistance services shall be partially or fully waived for persons found to be financially unable to pay fees based upon guidelines established by the Supreme Court.

(Adopted September 13, 2004, effective October 1, 2004; amended August 4, 2005, effective August 15, 2005.)

Every individual seeking appointment as a guardian or conservator shall file with the court a certificate of completion of the Supreme Court's online training course prior to the issuance of permanent letters of guardianship or conservatorship. The Supreme Court may charge a $25.00 fee to participants to cover the cost of furnishing this training. This fee shall be deposited in the guardianship pilot project fund as provided in section 31-3201 G, Idaho Code. Completion of the course or fees may be waived by the court.

(Adopted April 27, 2011, effective August 1, 2011; Amended September 7, 2011, effective September 15, 2011; Amended April 12, 2020, effective July 1, 2020.) 

(a) In order to carry out the court's oversight role in monitoring compliance in conservatorship or guardianship proceedings, communications which might be considered ex parte communications under Canon 3(B) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, may be received and reviewed by the court under the provisions of this rule.

(b) If the communication raises a concern about a guardian or conservator's compliance with their statutory duties and responsibilities, the court may:

1. Review the court file and take any action that is supported by the record, including ordering a status report, inventory, or accounting;

2. Appoint a Guardian ad Litem;

3. Refer the communication to a court investigator, visitor, attorney, or Guardian ad Litem for further action;

4. Refer the matter to the appropriate law enforcement agency or prosecutor's office;

5. Refer the matter to the appropriate licensing agency;

6. Refer the matter to appropriate agencies, including but not limited to child or adult protective services;

7. Set a hearing regarding the communication, compel the guardian or conservator's attendance, and/or require a response from the guardian or conservator concerning the issues raised by the communication;

8. Decline to take further action on the communication, with or without replying to the person or returning any written communication received from the person.

(c). If the communication does not raise issues of compliance and would otherwise be prohibited ex- parte communication under Canon 3(b) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, the court shall:

1. Return the written communication to the sender, if known; and

2. Disclose the communication to the guardian or conservator, Guardian ad Litem, and all parties and their attorneys.

(d). The court shall disclose any ex parte communication reviewed under section (b) of this rule, and any action taken by the court, to the guardian or conservator, Guardian ad Litem, and all parties and their attorneys, unless the court finds good cause to dispense with disclosure. If the court dispenses with disclosure, it must make written findings in support of its determination of good cause and preserve the communication received and any response made by the court. The court may place its findings and the preserved communication under seal or otherwise secure their confidentiality.

(Amended May 15, 2013, effective July 1, 2013.)

Idaho Court Administrative Rule 54.2. Guardianship Reports

A. All guardians shall file with the court a report within 30 days following the anniversary of the appointment and:

1. At least annually thereafter;

2. When the court orders additional reports to be filed;

3. When the guardian resigns or is removed; and

4. When the guardianship is terminated unless the court determines that there is no need.

B. The guardian shall provide copies of any report filed by the guardian as ordered by the court.

C. A report shall be under oath or affirmation and shall state:

1. The address of the guardian and person under guardianship;

2. The current mental, physical, and social condition of the person under guardianship,including family contact;

3. The living arrangements during the reporting period;

4. The medical, educational, vocational and other professional services provided to the person under guardianship and the guardian's opinion as to the adequacy of care for the person under guardianship;

5. A summary of the guardian's visits with and activities on behalf of the person under guardianship;

6. If the person under guardianship is institutionalized, whether the guardian agrees with the current treatment plan;

7. A description of any significant changes in the capacity of the person under guardianship to meet essential requirements for physical health or safety;

8. A recommendation as to the need for continued guardianship and any recommended changes in the scope of the guardianship;

9. Any other information requested by the court or useful in the opinion of the guardian.

(Adopted April 4, 2014; effective July 1, 2014.)

Idaho Court Administrative Rule 54.3. Conservator Reports.

A. All conservators shall file with the Court:

1. An inventory within 90 days of appointment;

2. An  accounting  within  30  days  of  the  anniversary  date  of  the  conservator's appointment and at least annually thereafter;

3. An accounting with any petition for resignation or termination of appointment of the conservator;

4. A final accounting within 30 days of the removal of the conservator; and

5. Any additional reports ordered by the court.

B. The conservator shall provide copies of any report filed by the conservator as ordered by the court.

C. Every report submitted by a conservator shall cover a specific time period stated in the report. The report shall cover the person under conservatorship's  entire estate under the control of the conservator. Supporting documentation for items in the report shall accompany the report unless:

1. It is voluminous or expensive to provide;

2. It contains sensitive or private information; or

3. Other good reasons exist for not providing it.

The report shall state:

(i) The reasons for not providing the supporting documentation;

(ii) That it is held by, or is reasonably available to, the conservator;

(iii) And that it will be produced upon request.

D. An inventory shall contain:

1. The address of the conservator and person under conservatorship;

2. A description and fair market value of all assets or categories of assets at the date of appointment;

3. The method of determining fair market value of each item or category;

4. Encumbrances, which shall be specifically identified, including:

(i) The asset secured by the encumbrance;

(ii) The amount of the encumbrance at the date of appointment;

(iii) The holder of the encumbrance;

(iv) The relationship of the holder to the person under conservatorship, if known to the conservator;

(v) The relationship of the holder to the conservator; and

(vi) Any other relevant information.

E. An accounting shall contain:

1. The address of the conservator and person under conservatorship;

2. A detailed listing of everything of value received by the person under conservatorship, which may be reported in categories, including the source of the item, its fair market value and method of determining the fair market value;

3. A detailed listing of all payments made for the person under conservatorship, which may be reported in categories including:

(i) The amount;

(ii) To whom the payment was made;

(iii) The method or frequency of making each payment if not indicated by the item or category;

(iv) The consideration for each payment if not indicated by the item or category;

(v) The relationship of the recipient of each payment to the person under conservatorship if known to the conservator;

(vi) The conservator's relationship to the recipient of each payment;

(vii) The time period covered by each payment if relevant; and

(viii) Any other information relevant to each payment.

4. A listing of the net assets of the estate of the person under conservatorship at the end of the reporting period; and

5. Any other information relevant to the actions of the conservator during the reporting period.

(Adopted April 4, 2014; effective July 1, 2014.)

Idaho Court Administrative Rule 54.4. Visitor Reports.

     (a) A visitor must have the following qualifications:

          1.  A license in good standing in any state in the field of social services or health care;

          2.  A post-baccalaureate degree, including, but not limited to, a Masters in Social Work (MSW), Masters of Science in Nursing (MSN), Juris Doctorate (JD), and at least two years of relevant experience; or

          3.  At least two (2) years of relevant experience in the range of case types which arise under Title 15, Chapters 3 and 5, and Title 66, Chapter 4, Idaho Code.  The court may determine whether the proposed visitor’s experience is sufficient.  

     (b) The visitor must visit and interview the person proposed to be under guardianship (“person”) at the person’s residence, if feasible, or where the person can be found.  The visitor must also interview the petitioner and any proposed guardian or        conservator. It is preferable that the interviews be conducted separately.

     (c) In preparing reports, the visitor must consider all available information concerning any proposed guardian, conservator, and individual who resides in or frequents the person’s proposed residence, including, but not limited to, information available to the visitor pursuant to Idaho Code Section 15-5-311.

     (d) The visitor must file a report with the court, signed under oath or affirmation, which includes the following information:

          1. The person’s impairments and how those impairments may affect the person’s understanding or capacity to make or communicate decisions;

          2. The person’s functional limitations and how they have exposed or may expose the person to substantial harm in the following areas:

               A. Ability to provide for food, clothing, shelter, health care, or safety; and

               B. Ability to manage his or her property or financial affairs.

          3. Acts, occurrences, or statements within the past twelve months related to the person’s inabilities to provide for personal needs or to manage property;

          4. Whether the acts, occurrences, or statements were done or made:

               A. Voluntarily;

               B. With consideration of the risk and consequences and a clear understanding of the potential outcome;

               C.  With relevant information necessary to make the decision;

               D.  With an understanding that the person is free to choose or refuse any alternative available; and

               E.  As a result of a temporary or reversible condition.

          5.  Need for care or treatment, and residential requirements;

          6.  The person’s opinions and preferences regarding:

               A.  The need for a guardianship or conservatorship;

               B.  The terms of the guardianship or conservatorship and

               C.  The proposed guardian or conservator.

          7.  The financial status of the person, including any public benefits or services;

          8. The person’s understanding of his or her financial status;

          9.  Whether the person understands the nature of the proceedings and if he or she is able to and wishes to attend the hearing;

          10.  Whether a convicted felon resides in or frequents the person’s current or proposed residence;

          11.  Identity of all the people:

                A. With significant interest in the welfare of the person;

                B. Who should be informed of the proceedings;

                C. Who currently assist the person on a regular basis; or

                D. Who may be available to assist the person on a regular basis.

          12.  Qualifications of the proposed guardian or conservator and the nature and quality of their relationship with the person;

          13. The purpose and need for the guardianship or conservatorship;

          14. Recommendations:

               A.  Whether a guardianship or conservatorship is necessary and why less intrusive alternatives are not appropriate;

               B.  What alternatives to guardianship or conservatorship have been explored or tried;  

               C.  If a limited guardianship or conservatorship is recommended:

                    i) The specific limitations on the guardian’s or conservator’s authority; 

                    ii) How the guardian or conservator will engage and involve the person in decision-making; and,

                    iii) Complete and attach a differentiated case management tool with monitoring recommendations.

               D.  If a full guardianship or conservatorship is recommended:

                    i) Why a limited guardianship or limited conservatorship is not appropriate;

                    ii) How the guardian or conservator will engage and involve the person in decision-making; and,

                   iii) Complete and attach a differentiated case management tool with monitoring recommendations.

               E.  The appropriateness of the proposed guardian or conservator;

               F.  The appropriateness of the person’s residence or proposed residence;

               G.  The appropriateness of the proposed guardian’s care plan or conservator’s financial plan; 

               H.  The appropriateness of requiring a bond by the proposed conservator, taking into account the financial status of the proposed conservator; and

               I.  The need to reassess periodically for modification or restoration of rights. 

     (e) Unless the court decides otherwise, the visitor must provide copies of any filed reports to:

          1. Guardian ad Litem;

          2. Petitioner;

          3. Proposed guardian or conservator;

          4. Any attorney of record; and

          5. Person proposed to be under guardianship or conservatorship.

(Adopted May 10, 2017, effective July 1, 2017; amended April 12, 2020, effective July 1, 2020.)

Idaho Court Administrative Rule 54.5. Idaho Department of Health and Welfare Evaluation Committee Reports.

     (a)  The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare Evaluation Committee must interview the person proposed to be under guardianship (“person”). The evaluation committee must also interview the petitioner and any proposed guardian or conservator. It is preferable that the interviews be conducted separately.

     (b)  In preparing reports, the evaluation committee must consider all available information concerning any proposed guardian, conservator, and individual who resides in or frequents the person’s proposed residence, including, but not limited to, information available to the evaluation committee pursuant to Idaho Code Section 66-404.

     (c)  The evaluation committee must file a report with the court, signed by each committee member under oath or affirmation, which includes the following information:

          1. A description of the person’s chronic disability and whether the individual meets the statutory definition of developmental disability found at Idaho Code Section 66-402(5), including an identification of the three functional limitations and a descriptionof how the identified functional limitations are substantial limitations;

          2. A description of the person's mental, emotional, and physical condition; educational status; and adaptive and social skills;

          3. A description of the lifelong or extended duration of special care, treatment, or other services, including whether the person is on a Developmental Disability Waiver and whether the individual participates in person-centered planning, including the identity of the person-centered planning team members;

          4.  The person’s opinions and preferences regarding:

               A.  The need for a guardianship or conservatorship;

               B.  The terms of the guardianship or conservatorship; and,

               C.  The proposed guardian or conservator.

          5.  The financial status of the person, including any public benefits or services;

          6. The person’s understanding of his or her financial status;

          7.  Identify the areas where the person can or cannot achieve a rudimentary understanding of the purpose, nature, and possible risks and benefits of a decision after conscientious efforts at explanation, including, but not limited to, the nature of the proceedings;

          8. If the person is able to and wishes to attend the hearing;

          9.  If known, whether a convicted felon resides in or frequents the person’s current or proposed residence;

          10.  Identity of all the people:

               A. With a significant interest in the welfare of the person;

               B. Who should be informed of the proceedings;

               C. Who currently assist the person on a regular basis; and,

               D. Who may be available to assist the person on a regular basis.

          11.  Qualifications of the proposed guardian or conservator, including the following;

               A. The nature and quality of their relationship with the person;

               B. Whether the proposed guardian or conservator is willing to permit the person to participate as fully as possible in all decisions which affect the person;

               C. Whether the proposed guardian or conservator is willing to assist the person in meeting the essential requirements for the person’s physical health and safety, protecting the person’s rights, and managing the person’s financial resources;  and,

               D. Whether the proposed guardian or conservator is willing to assist the person in developing or regaining the person’s abilities to the maximum extent possible.

          12. The purpose and need for the guardianship or conservatorship;

          13. Recommendations:

               A. Whether a guardianship or conservatorship is necessary and why less intrusive alternatives are not appropriate;

               B. What alternatives to guardianship or conservatorship have been explored or tried;  

               C.  If a limited guardianship or conservatorship is recommended:

                    i) The specific limitations on the guardian’s or conservator’s authority;

                   ii) How the guardian or conservator will engage and involve the person in decision-making; and, 

                   iii) Complete and attach a differentiated case management tool with monitoring recommendations.

               D.  If a full guardianship or conservatorship is recommended:

                    i) Why a limited guardianship or limited conservatorship is not appropriate; 

                    ii) How the guardian or conservator will engage and involve the person in decision-making; and, 

                    iii) Complete and attach a differentiated case management tool with monitoring recommendations.

               E.  The appropriateness of the proposed guardian or conservator;

               F.  The appropriateness of the proposed guardian’s care plan or conservator’s financial plan; 

               G. The appropriateness of requiring a bond by the proposed conservator, taking into account the financial status of the proposed conservator;

               H. The need to reassess the guardianship or conservatorship periodically for review, modification, or restoration of rights; and,

          14. The signature of each member of the evaluation committee with a statement of concurrence or non-concurrence with the findings and any dissenting opinions or other comments of the members. 
     (d) Unless the court decides otherwise, the evaluation committee must provide copies of any filed reports to:

                         1. Petitioner;

                         2. Proposed guardian or conservator;

                         3. Any attorney of record; and

                         4. Person proposed to be under guardianship or conservatorship.

(Adopted May 10, 2017; effective July 1, 2017; amended April 12, 2020, effective July 1, 2020.)

Idaho Court Administrative Rule 54.6. Professional Guardian and Conservator Certification.

     (a)  A professional guardian or conservator is a person who:

          1. will provide guardianship or conservatorship services for a fee;

          2. has rendered guardianship or conservatorship services for three or more persons; and,

          3. is not related to the person under guardianship or conservatorship by blood, adoption, marriage, or civil union.

     (b)  A professional guardian or conservator must be certified by the Center for Guardianship Certification unless waived by the court for good cause.

     (c)  If a professional guardian or conservator is an entity, including, but not limited to, limited liability organizations and partnerships, it must have a certified guardian or conservator involved in the provision of guardianship or conservatorship services for persons under guardianship or conservatorship.

     (d)  The court can for good cause require any guardian or conservator to be certified by the Center for Guardianship Certification.

(Adopted April 14, 2020, effective July 1, 2020.)

(a) The Idaho Drug Court and Mental Health Court Act specifies the goals, purposes, policies for acceptance and related operating guidance for the operation of drug courts and mental health courts in Idaho.  In addition, the Act establishes a statewide Drug Court and Mental Health Court Coordinating Committee and vests it with the responsibility for establishing standards and guidelines and providing ongoing oversight of the operation of drug courts and mental health courts in Idaho. This rule provides additional direction for the development, establishment, operations, and termination of drug courts and mental health courts. The provisions of this rule apply to all drug courts and mental health courts, including those addressing adult felony or misdemeanor cases, juvenile cases, or child protection cases.   

(b) Judicial districts planning to establish a new drug court and/or mental health court must submit a letter of intent to the Statewide Drug and Mental Health Coordinator, signed by the Administrative District Judge and the Trial Court Administrator, no less than six months in advance of a proposed starting date. The Statewide Drug Court Coordinator will advise the Drug Court and Mental Health Court Coordinating Committee and shall offer assistance in planning, coordination, identifying available funds, and providing training.  The Coordinating Committee will advise the judicial district as to available funding and a feasible starting date, within thirty (30) days of receiving the letter of intent.

(c) Any judicial district planning to apply for training to assist in the development or ongoing operation of a drug court and/or mental health court, through an application to the Department of Justice for the Drug Court Planning Initiative, must notify the Drug and Mental Health Court Coordinator, through the Administrative District Judge and Trial Court Administrator, prior to the submission of their training application.  The Statewide Drug and Mental Health Coordinator will schedule a pre-training briefing with the team, in advance of their participation in the national training, to orient the team to Idaho statute, guidelines, and available resources. Acknowledgement of or participation in the national training will not guarantee that the Drug Court and Mental Health Court Coordinating Committee will approve the subsequent proposal for the new drug court and/or mental health court.

(d) The judicial district must submit an operations application, on a form to be prescribed by the Drug Court and Mental Health Court Coordinating Committee, prior to beginning operations of a new drug court and/or mental health court. This application shall be signed by the Administrative District Judge and the Trial Court Administrator and shall be submitted to the Drug Court and Mental Health Court Coordinating Committee no less than sixty days in advance of a proposed starting date.  The Drug Court and Mental Health Court Coordinating Committee shall approve or disapprove the application and may adjust the proposed starting date, consistent with available resources. The operations application shall include the following:

(1) A memorandum of agreement (MOA) signed by the Administrative Director of the Courts, Administrative District Judge, Trial Court Administrator, one or more proposed presiding judges, the prosecuting attorney(s) and city attorneys for the participating jurisdictions, the public defender(s) for the participating jurisdictions, the community supervision agency, and other community entities such as the Regional Substance Abuse Authority and / or Regional Mental Health Council. This MOA will describe each agency or organizationís participation and specific commitments to the drug or mental health court. 

(2) Documentation of training of the core team for the drug court and/or mental health court either through the National Drug Court Planning Initiative or by the Statewide Drug and Mental Health Court Coordinator.

(3) Assurance of understanding and a plan for addressing the applicable Statewide Guidelines For Effectiveness And Evaluation.

(4) Assurance of understanding and plan for collecting and reporting required data, including utilization of the ISTARS Drug Court system.

(e) Any district court operating a drug court and/or mental health court shall annually review and report back to the Statewide Drug Court and Mental Health Coordinating Committee, through the Administrative District Judge and Trial Court Administrator, as to how the court is operating in accordance with the Guidelines, the approved participant capacity, and any directions from the Drug Court and Mental  Health Court Coordinating Committee.

(f) A judicial district planning to terminate a drug court and/or mental health court must submit a letter of planned termination, to the Statewide Drug and Mental Health Court Coordinator for communication to the Drug Court and Mental Health Court Coordinating Committee, signed by the Administrative District Judge and Trial Court Administrator, as soon as reasonably possible and prior to the proposed ending date.  The Drug Court and Mental Health Court Coordinating Committee shall approve or disapprove the planned termination and may adjust the proposed termination date.

(Adopted August 5, 2005, effective August 15, 2005; amended December 14, 2017, effective January 1, 2018.)

Charges for family court services shall not exceed the amounts defined in the following Cost Recovery Fee Schedule, adopted by the Supreme Court pursuant to the authority of section 32-1406, Idaho Code.  A waiver or partial waiver of fees shall be issued if it is shown to the family court services coordinator's satisfaction that the applicant's household income is less than 125% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines.  Fees collected for family court services shall be distributed as required by section 32-1406, Idaho Code.

Cost Recovery Fee Schedule For Coordinated Family Court Services 

(Adopted September 18, 2005, effective September 15, 2005; amended April 27, 2016, effective July 1, 2016.)

(a) The following time standards are adopted as guidelines for judges, trial court administrators, lawyers, and litigants to assist them in determining the length of time it should take to conclude a case in the trial courts:

(b) In each of the categories of cases in subsection (a), the median length of time taken to resolve all cases should not exceed the time standard prescribed for that category.  Trial judges should strive to resolve each individual case within the applicable time standard unless the trial judge determines that exceptional circumstances exist.

(c) No action shall be dismissed for failure to meet these time standards guidelines. 

(Adopted August 8, 2008, effective August 8, 2008.)  

(a) The administrative district judge shall assign each district judge within the district to a resident chambers within the judicial district.   Any reassignment from the resident chambers occupied by a district judge may be made only with the consent of that district judge.  The assignment of district judges to resident chambers shall at all times comply with the provisions of chapter 8, title 1, Idaho Code.  If the provisions of that chapter permit a district judge position to have its resident chambers in either of two counties, the administrative district judge shall assign a district judge to that position, and the district judge so assigned shall determine in which of the two counties the resident chambers shall be located.

(b) If a vacancy in a district judge position occurs, and a district judge is reassigned to the resident chambers of the vacant position, such reassignment shall take place prior to the issuing of the notice of opportunity to submit applications for the vacant district judge position.  The notice of opportunity to submit applications for the vacant district judge position shall clearly state the resident chambers of the position for which applications are to be submitted.

(c) No district judge shall be reassigned to different resident chambers from January 1 of a year in which elections for district judge are held until the Secretary of State has delivered a certificate of election to the person who has been elected to that district judge position.  From the time of the delivery of the certificate of election for a district judge position until the first Monday in January following, no reassignment of that district judge position to different resident chambers may be made without the consent of the district judge currently holding that position and of any person who has been newly elected to that position.

(Adopted February 26, 2010, effective March 10, 2010; Suspended September 14, 2011)  

(a) The Court finds that the actions of persons who habitually, persistently, and without reasonable grounds engage in conduct that:

(1) serves merely to harass or maliciously injure another party in a civil action;

(2) is not warranted under existing law and cannot be supported by a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal or existing law; or 

(3) is imposed solely for delay,hinder the effective administration of justice, impose an unacceptable burden on judicial personnel and resources, and impede the normal and essential functioning of the judicial process.  Therefore, to allow courts to address this impediment to the proper functioning of the courts while protecting the constitutional right of all individuals to access to the courts, the Court adopts the procedures set forth in this rule.

(b) Litigation, as used in this rule, means any civil action or proceeding, and includes any appeal from an administrative agency, any appeal from the small claims department of the magistrate division, any appeal from the magistrate division to the district court, and any appeal to the Supreme Court. 

(c) An administrative judge may enter a prefiling order prohibiting a vexatious litigant from filing any new litigation in the courts of this state pro se without first obtaining leave of a judge of the court where the litigation is proposed to be filed.  A district judge or magistrate judge may, on the judgeís own motion or the motion of any party, refer the consideration of whether to enter such an order to the administrative judge.  The administrative judge may also consider whether to enter such a prefiling order on his or her own motion or the motion of a party if the litigant with respect to whom the prefiling order is to be considered is a party to an action before the administrative judge.  

(d) An administrative judge may find a person to be a vexatious litigant based on a finding that a person has done any of the following:

(1) In the immediately preceding seven-year period the person has commenced, prosecuted or maintained pro se at least three litigations, other than in the small claims department of the magistrate division, that have been finally determined adversely to that person.

(2) After a litigation has been finally determined against the person, the person has repeatedly relitigated or attempted to relitigate, pro se, either 

(A) the validity of the determination against the same defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined or

(B) the cause of action, claim, controversy, or any of the issues of fact or law, determined or concluded by the final determination against the same defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined.

(3) In any litigation while acting pro se, repeatedly files unmeritorious motions, pleadings, or other papers, conducts unnecessary discovery, or engages in other tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.

(4) Has previously been declared to be a vexatious litigant by any state or federal court of record in any action or proceeding.

(e) If the administrative district judge finds that there is a basis to conclude that a person is a vexatious litigant and that a prefiling order should be issued, the administrative district judge shall issue a proposed prefiling order along with the proposed findings supporting the issuance of the prefiling order.  The person who would be designated as a vexatious litigant in the proposed order shall then have fourteen (14) days to file a written response to the proposed order and findings.  If a response is filed, the administrative district judge may, in his or her discretion, grant a hearing on the proposed order.  If no response is filed within fourteen (14) days, or if the administrative district judge concludes following a response and any subsequent hearing that there is a basis for issuing the order, the administrative district judge may issue the prefiling order. 

(f) A prefiling order entered by an administrative district judge designating a person as a vexatious litigant may be appealed to the Supreme Court by such person as a matter of right.

(g) The Supreme Court may, on the Court's own motion or the motion of any party to an appeal, enter a prefiling order prohibiting a vexatious litigant from filing any new litigation in the courts of this state pro se without first obtaining leave of a judge of the court where the litigation is proposed to be filed.  If the Supreme Court finds that there is a basis to conclude that a person is a vexatious litigant and that a prefiling order should be issued, the Court shall issue a proposed prefiling order along with the proposed findings supporting the issuance of the prefiling order.  The person who would be designated as a vexatious litigant in the proposed order shall then have fourteen (14) days to file a written response to the proposed order and findings.  If no response is filed within fourteen (14) days, or if the Supreme Court concludes following a response and any subsequent hearing that there is a basis for issuing the order, the prefiling order may be issued.

(h) Disobedience of a prefiling order entered pursuant to this rule may be punished as a contempt of court.

(i) A presiding judge shall permit the filing of new litigation by a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order only if it appears that the litigation has merit and has not been filed for the purpose of harassment or delay.

(j) If a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order files any litigation without first obtaining the required leave of a judge to file the litigation, the court may dismiss the action.  In addition, any party named in the litigation may file a notice stating that the plaintiff is a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order.  The filing of such notice shall stay the litigation.  The litigation shall be dismissed by the court unless the plaintiff, within fourteen (14) days of the filing of the notice, obtains an order from the presiding judge permitting the litigation to proceed.  If the presiding judge issues an order permitting the litigation to proceed, the time for the defendants to answer or respond to the litigation will begin to run when the defendants are served with the order of the presiding judge.

(k) The clerk of the court shall provide a copy of any prefiling order issued pursuant to this rule to the Administrative Director of the Courts, who shall maintain a list of vexatious litigants subject to prefiling orders.

(Adopted April 14, 2011, effective July 1, 2011.)

Idaho Court Administrative Rule 60. Policy Regarding Jury Selection.

In order to foster the jury policy of the state of Idaho all persons selected for jury service shall be selected at random from a fair cross section of the population of the county served by the court, and all qualified citizens shall have the opportunity to be considered for jury service.

(Adopted November 17, 2021, effective January 1, 2022.)

Idaho Court Administrative Rule 60.1. Definitions.

As used in these rules, the following are defined as:

(i) “Statewide Master Jury List” means a statewide master jury list compiled and maintained by the Supreme Court using the Supreme Court’s jury platform.

(ii) “County Master Jury List” means a master jury list by county, whether created by an individual county or divided from the statewide master jury list.

(iii) “Term of Service Panel” means a list of unduplicated names or identifying numbers of prospective jurors drawn at random by the jury commissioner from the county master jury list to potentially serve as a trial or grand juror in a specific county for a specified term of service.

The Administrative District Judge shall determine the term of service for a term of service panel for each county.

(iv) “Qualified prospective juror” means a person drawn from a term of service panel who was not subsequently disqualified following the juror qualification process.

(v) “Qualified Jury Panel” means a list of names or identifying numbers of all qualified prospective jurors (grand jurors or trial jurors) for a designated term of service.

(vi) “Trial/Grand Jury Panel” is the list of names or identifying numbers of prospective jurors drawn at random from the qualified jury panel when a grand jury has been ordered and/or any action is called for trial by jury, from which panel(s) of jurors are selected.

The entire panel may be divided into two (2) or more panels and thereafter re-divided or combined for jury trials or a grand jury in such manner as prescribed by the Administrative District Judge for the trial of individual cases or a grand jury. The term of service for grand jury panels and trial jury panels may be different.

(vii) “One step method” means qualifying and summoning prospective jurors by serving the juror qualification questionnaire to prospective jurors together with a summons or summons letter for jury service.

(viii) “Two step method” means qualifying prospective jurors by first serving the juror qualification form to prospective jurors, and then separately summoning prospective jurors by serving a summons or summons letter for jury service.

(Adopted November 17, 2021, effective January 1, 2022.)

Idaho Court Administrative Rule 60.2. Random Selection Procedures.

(a) Following creation of the statewide or a county master jury list, random selection procedures shall be used throughout the juror selection process except as hereinafter provided. Any method may be used, manual or automated, that provides each eligible and available prospective juror with an equal probability of selection.

(b) Random selection procedures shall be employed in:

(i) Selecting persons to create a term of service panel from a master jury list,

(ii) Selecting persons from a term of service panel to be sent juror questionnaire forms or to be summoned for jury service,

(iii) Assigning prospective jurors to jury panels, except prospective jurors whose service was postponed and specifically assigned to a subsequent panel,

(iv) Drawing names of jurors to establish priority for voir dire, and

(v) Determining the identity of any alternate juror(s) immediately before jury deliberations begin.

(c) Random selection procedures shall not be used:

(i) to exclude persons ineligible for jury service,

(ii) to excuse or postpone prospective jurors for jury service, or

(iii) to temporarily remove prospective jurors challenged for cause or peremptorily during jury selection.

(Adopted November 17, 2021, effective January 1, 2022.)

Idaho Court Administrative Rule 61. Source Lists for Master Jury Lists.

At a minimum, a master jury list shall consist of the combined de-duplicated names from the voter registration lists of the most recent general election, and lists of persons issued a state of Idaho driver’s license or identification card. The names of the deceased shall be permanently removed from master jury lists.

(Adopted November 17, 2021, effective January 1, 2022.)

Idaho Court Administrative Rule 61.1. County Master Jury List Created by a County Jury Commission – Elimination of Duplicate Names; Updating Lists.

(a) Unless using a county master jury list provided by the Supreme Court derived from the statewide master jury list, the jury commission of each county shall compile and maintain a county master jury list from the source lists as provided in Rule 61 above.

(b) The jury commission shall eliminate duplication of names on the county master jury list before selection of names for the term of service panel. Any duplicates subsequently discovered, including during the qualification process, shall be removed from the list when discovered.

(c) The county master jury list shall be updated from time to time as determined by the jury commissioner, but not less frequently than December of each odd-numbered year. The manner of updating shall include any changes, deletions, and additions of names from the source lists, emptying and refilling anew from the source lists, or using both such methods.

(Adopted November 17, 2021, effective January 1, 2022.)

Idaho Court Administrative Rule 61.2. Supreme Court Master Jury List Divided into County Master Jury Lists – Elimination of Duplicate Names.

(a) The Supreme Court shall compile and maintain a statewide master jury list from the statewide source lists provided in Rule 61 above. Each prospective juror will be assigned and retain a unique juror identification number or code generated by the Supreme Court’s jury platform.

(b) The Supreme Court’s jury platform shall initially eliminate duplicate names from the statewide master jury list.

(c) The statewide master jury list so compiled and maintained shall also be divided into county master jury lists for use by the jury commissions in each county authorized to use the Supreme Court’s jury platform.

(d) Subsequently discovered duplicates, or other improperly included names, shall be removed from both statewide and county master jury lists when discovered.

(e) The Supreme Court master jury list shall be updated, by changes, deletions, and additions, or by emptying and refilling from the source lists, or by a combination of these methods, not less frequently than December of each odd-numbered year.

(Adopted November 17, 2021, effective January 1, 2022.)

Idaho Court Administrative Rule 61.3 Master Jury Lists Available for Public Inspection.

Statewide and county master jury lists shall be open to the public for inspection upon written request to the county jury commission and Administrative District Judge, or the Administrative Director of the Courts as applicable.

(Adopted November 17, 2021, effective January 1, 2022.)

Idaho Court Administrative Rule 62. Qualification of Prospective Jurors and Summons Process.

(a) All summonses and summons letters for jury service must be mailed to or personally served upon the prospective juror. A summons or a summons letter shall direct the prospective juror how and when to respond, which in addition to personally appearing may include contacting the jury commissioner for instructions on when and where to appear.

(b) If a prospective juror fails to report for jury service as directed, the juror may be required to appear and show cause for the failure to appear. A juror may also be held in contempt for failure to appear.

(c) The questions contained in the qualification questionnaire must be limited to those which elicit answers that may disqualify a person from jury service. The qualification questionnaire shall be in a form prescribed by the Supreme Court which form is attached hereto as Appendix A; provided however a supplemental administrative questionnaire addressing questions which are developed for administrative purposes only may be used if approved by the Administrative District Judge. The elected clerk or designated deputy clerk, or jury commissioner may provide an opportunity to prospective jurors to complete and return the qualification questionnaire and supplemental administrative questionnaire forms through email or other electronic means in lieu of mailing.

(d) A supplemental voir dire questionnaire addressing questions which are developed for the purpose of voir dire may be used if approved by the judge assigned to the case or the Administrative District Judge.  The elected clerk or designated deputy clerk, or jury commissioner may provide an opportunity to prospective jurors to complete and return the supplemental voir dire questionnaire form through email or other electronic means in lieu of mailing.

(e) Responses to all juror questionnaires, including supplemental questionnaires, are confidential in accordance with IRCP 47(a) and ICR 23.1.

(f) If the one step method is used, service of the qualification questionnaire may be included in the mailing of the summons issued by the clerk or the jury commissioner; or the qualification questionnaire may be sent electronically or provided on-line at the same time as the summons or summons letter is mailed to the prospective juror.

(g) If the two step method is used, qualification questionnaires may be sent or provided, and completed and returned by mail, email or other reliable means of communication.

(h) The determination of disqualification of a prospective juror as well as the term of the disqualification shall be in accordance with Rule 62.1 below. A person who is disqualified shall be removed from the statewide master jury list or county master jury list, or both as appropriate.

(i) A prospective juror who fails to complete and return a juror qualification questionnaire within ten (10) days of the mailing thereof shall be directed by the jury commissioner or clerk to appear forthwith before the clerk or the jury commissioner to complete the qualification questionnaire. A prospective juror who fails to appear and complete the qualification questionnaire shall be ordered by the court to appear and show cause for failure to appear and complete the qualification questionnaire as directed. Contempt proceedings may also be initiated and the prospective juror’s service may be postponed to a new prospective jury panel as set by the presiding judge.

(j) If a prospective juror is unable to complete the qualification questionnaire, another person may do so on behalf of the prospective juror and shall indicate that such person completed the qualification questionnaire and the reason therefor.

(k) If it appears there is an omission, ambiguity, or error in a returned qualification questionnaire, the clerk or the jury commissioner shall again send the qualification questionnaire with instructions and require the qualification questionnaire to be completed and returned within ten (10) days after the second mailing.

(l) All prospective jurors who are not disqualified following review of the qualification questionnaires shall be eligible for jury selection.

(Adopted November 17, 2021, effective January 1, 2022; amended February 25, 2022, effective February 28, 2022.)

Idaho Court Administrative Rule 62.1 Eligibility for Jury Service.

(1) A prospective juror is disqualified to serve on a jury if the prospective juror:

(a) Is not a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county,

(b) Is not a least eighteen (18) years old,

(c) Is incapable, by reason of physical or mental disability and with reasonable accommodation, of rendering satisfactory jury service; but a prospective juror claiming this disqualification may be required to submit a physician’s certificate as to the disability, and the certifying physician is subject to inquiry by the court at its discretion,

(d) Has a felony conviction as provided by section 3, article VI of the constitution of the state of Idaho, and who has not been restored to the rights of citizenship under applicable law, or 

(e) Is unable to read, speak, and understand the English language. 

(2) The length of such disqualification shall be two (2) years, unless a judge has extended the period of disqualification for prospective jurors under (1)(c) above, which period may be permanent.

(3) A directive to disqualify a prospective juror for greater than two (2) years shall be based upon a judicial finding as to the nature and duration of the disability, based upon the information provided in the qualification questionnaire form, an interview with the prospective juror, or other competent evidence.

(Adopted November 17, 2021, effective January 1, 2022; amended February 25, 2022, effective February 28, 2022.)

Idaho Court Administrative Rule 62.2. Selection of Assigned Trial/Grand Jury Panel from Term of Service Panel.

(a) When any action is called for trial by jury or a grand jury has been ordered, the jury commissioner shall create an assigned trial/grand jury panel from the term of service panel by drawing at random, by use of a manual, mechanical, or automated system, the specified number of names or identifying numbers of qualified prospective jurors.

(b) The entire panel may be divided and subsequently combined to accommodate separate panels for grand and trial juries, as prescribed by the Administrative District Judge.

(c) The selection of a trial jury for the trial of an individual case shall be in accordance with the applicable criminal or civil rule of procedure.

(d) The selection of a grand jury shall be in accordance with the applicable rule of criminal procedure.

(Adopted November 17, 2021, effective January 1, 2022.)

Idaho Court Administrative Rule 63. Exemption, Excuse, and Postponements from Jury Service.

(a) There shall be no automatic exemptions or excuses from jury service.

(b) Postponements of jury service are preferred over excuses.

(c) Any postponement of jury service shall be for the shortest period of time reasonable, and shall be to a date certain at which time the juror’s name or identifying number shall be placed in the next available jury panel.

(d) The jury commissioner shall make the court aware in writing of multiple requests for postponement made by any prospective juror.

(e) Qualified prospective jurors who are summoned may have their jury service postponed or excused if:

(i) the person is seventy (70) years of age or older and requests to be excused which may be a permanent excuse if requested,

(ii) the person’s ability to receive and evaluate information is so impaired that they are unable to satisfactorily perform the duties of a juror,

(iii) the person requests to postpone jury service and undue hardship, extreme inconvenience, or public necessity is shown, or

(iv) the person is a mother breastfeeding her child.

(f) The person requesting a postponement may be required to provide a written statement setting forth the reason for the request and the amount of time needed.

(g) The court or jury commissioner may require a person requesting postponement for any medical reason to provide a statement from a medical provider supporting such request.

(h) A postponement shall be for a period of time as the presiding judge or the jury commissioner deems necessary, at the conclusion of which the person shall reappear for jury service in accordance with the directive of the presiding judge or jury commissioner.

(Adopted November 17, 2021, effective January 1, 2022; amended February 25, 2022, effective February 28, 2022.)

Idaho Court Administrative Rule 64. Credit for Jury Service.

Credit shall be given in the following manner:

(a) If a prospective juror attends court, that is, if the juror actually comes to the courtroom or to the jury assembly area pursuant to call, for prospective service, he or she must receive credit against the ten (10) day statutory limitation, regardless of whether or not the juror is called to serve or is excused from the jury by challenge for cause or peremptory challenge.

(b) A juror shall be given credit for service in the same proportion as compensation is statutorily determined, for one-half day or full day credit.

(Adopted November 17, 2021, effective January 1, 2022.)

Idaho Court Administrative Rule 64.1. Limitation on Required Jury Service.

In any two (2) year period, a person shall not be required:

(a) To serve or attend court for prospective service as a trial juror more than ten (10) court days, except if necessary to complete service in a particular case;

(b) To be available for jury service for a term exceeding six (6) months; provided however the Administrative District Judge may order a shorter term of required availability for jury service;

(c) To serve on more than one (1) grand jury; or

(d) To serve as both a grand and trial juror.

(Adopted November 17, 2021, effective January 1, 2022.)

Idaho Court Administrative Rule 65. Orientation of Trial Jurors.

The court shall provide an orientation to persons called for jury service substantially as follows:

(a) At the time of serving the juror qualification questionnaire, a juror orientation pamphlet shall also be made available which is provided by the Administrative Office of the Courts outlining how a jury is chosen, trial procedure, people involved in the trial, and jury fees; and

(b) Upon first appearance at the courthouse, or earlier as ordered by the Administrative District Judge, persons called to jury service shall receive a jury orientation consisting of the uniform juror orientation video produced by the Administrative Office of the Courts, together with any introductory jury instructions provided by the presiding judge.

(Adopted November 17, 2021, effective January 1, 2022; amended February 25, 2022, effective February 28, 2022.)

Idaho Court Administrative Rule 66. Trial Interruptions - Jury Deliberations.

(a) The conduct of a jury trial takes precedence over all other proceedings except those of a more urgent nature.

(b) Jury deliberations should normally take place during courthouse hours and should not normally take place after 5:00 p.m. or on Saturday, Sunday or any legal holiday. Exceptions may be made to this rule for one-day trials, deliberations continued with the consent of the jury, or other unique circumstances. However, court calendar considerations shall not be a basis to exceed normal hours of jury service.

(Adopted November 17, 2021, effective January 1, 2022.)

Idaho Court Administrative Rule 67. Retention Periods for Jury Papers and Records.

All records and papers compiled and maintained by the jury commissioner or the clerk in connection with selection and service of jurors shall be preserved by the clerk for a minimum period of four (4) years or any longer period ordered by the court.

(Adopted November 17, 2021, effective January 1, 2022; amended February 25, 2022, effective February 28, 2022.)

Idaho Court Administrative Rule 68. Reimbursement for Lengthy Trial Jury Compensation.

(a) Any county seeking to obtain reimbursement for Lengthy Trial Juror Compensation pursuant to section 2-222, Idaho Code, must submit a written application to the Administrative Director of the Courts. Any such application for reimbursement must be received by the Administrative Director of the Courts on or between September 30th and November 30th, be substantially in the form found in Appendix B, and contain the following information:

(1) The case name, case number, and name of the presiding judge for each matter in the preceding county fiscal year which required juror attendance at court that exceeded five (5) days for one (1) trial, and for each such case,

(2) The number of jurors required to attend court more than five (5) days for one (1) trial, and all dates of attendance at court by the jurors,

(3) A representation that the county compensated the jurors fifty dollars ($50) for each day’s required attendance at court that exceeded five (5) days for one (1) trial as required by section 2-215(3), Idaho Code, 

(4) A calculation of the total compensation paid to jurors pursuant to section 2-215(3), Idaho Code, and 

(5) A calculation of the total net reimbursement requested pursuant to section 2-222, Idaho Code, for jurors paid pursuant to section 2-215(3), Idaho Code.

(b) The Board of County Commissioners shall certify the truth and accuracy of the information contained in any application for reimbursement submitted pursuant to this rule.

(c) To the extent moneys are appropriated by the Legislature, and in accord with the calculations required by section 2-222(2), Idaho Code, the Supreme Court will issue appropriate reimbursements for all applications approved by the Administrative Director of the Courts, if any, no later than January 31st following the submission of any such application for reimbursement.

(Adopted November 17, 2021, effective January 1, 2022; amended February 25, 2022, effective February 28, 2022.)

Storage and handling of exhibits shall be carried out using the following procedures; except as otherwise ordered by the Court:

(a) All exhibits must be individually tagged with the proper exhibit tag, properly completed and securely attached to the exhibit.

(b) Exhibits that are withdrawn remain listed on the exhibit list (and the withdrawal noted), but are not retained by the clerk. Exhibits that are denied admittance into evidence remain listed on the exhibits list (with the denial noted), and are retained by the clerk unless return to the attorney/party is specifically ordered by the court.

(c) If counsel or the court takes an exhibit from the clerk during trial, the clerk shall make a note of the number of the exhibit and who has taken it.

(d) No exhibit containing animal or bodily fluids and/or human or animal body fluid stains or parts, or dangerous, controlled or toxic substances shall be accepted by the clerk unless it is placed in a container that is securely sealed and protected against breakage so that odors cannot be emitted and court personnel are safeguarded. Containers of controlled substances must be clearly marked, identified and sealed. The party offering such evidence shall be responsible to ensure that the evidence is properly packaged prior to being brought into the courtroom.

(e) Narcotics, weapons, money, valuable or sensitive materials, while in the custody of the court, shall be secured in a locked facility during court recesses, lunch hours, and at other times when exhibits are unattended by the courtroom clerk or bailiff. Oversized exhibits, except for sensitive or dangerous items, may be stored in the courtroom overnight, if the courtroom is kept locked.

(f) When a dangerous, large or bulky exhibit that has been marked and identified or received in evidence poses a security, storage or safety problem, on recommendation of the clerk and stipulation of the parties, the court may order that all or a portion of it be returned to the party that offered it. In the case of exhibits offered by the prosecutor in a criminal case, the court may order that the exhibits be returned to the law enforcement agency involved. The order shall require that a full and complete photographic record of the exhibit or the portion returned be substituted for the exhibit. The party who offered the exhibit shall provide the photographic record. The party or agency to whom the exhibit is returned shall be responsible for maintaining and preserving the exhibit until there is a final disposition of the action or proceeding. All exhibit tags and other identifying markings or information concerning each exhibit shall remain in place and shall not be disturbed. Each exhibit shall be maintained intact and in the same condition as during trial. In the event further proceedings of any court having jurisdiction of the matter require the presence of the exhibit, the party or agency to whom it was returned shall promptly deliver the exhibit to the appropriate court, with notice to all parties.

(g) If, at the conclusion of the trial, counsel stipulates and the court approves, large and unwieldy exhibits can be represented by a photograph. The photograph shall be marked with the same information as the exhibit.

(h) After trial, drugs, weapons, and other dangerous or sensitive materials, including child pornography, that have been offered by the state in a criminal case shall be stored by law enforcement agencies. When transferring exhibits to the custody of law enforcement agencies, the clerk shall get a receipt acknowledging transfer of custody and file the receipt in the case file, noting on the exhibit list where and when transferred.

(Adopted March 23, 1990, effective July 1, 1990; Repealed in its entirety and new rule 71 adopted October 5, 2013, effective January 1, 2014.)

Rule 72.  Discipline, removal, or involuntary retirement of a justice or judge.

(a) Service of determination and recommendation.  Within seven (7) days of making a written determination that there is good cause for the discipline, removal, or retirement of a judge or justice, the judicial council shall serve a copy thereof upon the judge or justice.  The council shall also file a copy thereof with the Supreme Court, which copy shall be certified as true and correct by the chair of the council, its executive director, or its secretary.

(b) Service – when required and how made.  Every document filed with the Supreme Court shall be served on the other party.

(1) Service upon a party represented by an attorney shall be made upon the attorney unless service upon the party is ordered by the Supreme Court.  If the judicial council is not represented by an attorney, service upon it shall be made by serving the council’s executive director.  Service upon the person to be served shall be made by:

(A) handing it to the person; or

(B) leaving it at the person’s office with the person in charge of the office or, if no one is in charge, in a conspicuous place in the office; or

(C) mailing it to the person’s last known address, in which event service is complete upon mailing; or

(D) sending it by electronic means if the person consented in writing, in which event service is complete upon transmission, but is not effective if the serving party learns that it did not reach the person to be served; or

(E) transmitting the copy by a facsimile machine process although this rule shall not require a facsimile machine to be maintained in the office of the person upon whom service is to be made.

(2) A certificate of service, signed by the attorney or person making service, shall be attached to every document filed with the Supreme Court.  The certificate shall state the date and manner of service and the name and address of the person served.

(c) Petition for review of determination or recommendation.  If the judge or justice desires to contest the determination or the recommendation, he or she must file a petition for review within fourteen (14) days of the date the determination is filed with the Supreme Court.  Within seven (7) days thereafter, the petitioner must also file with the Supreme Court a certificate showing that a copy of the petition has been served upon the judicial council.  The failure to file a petition within the time herein specified shall constitute a waiver of any objection to the council’s determination and recommendation.

(d) Contents of petition.  

(1) The petition shall be entitled, “In the Matter of Judge (judge’s name)” or “In the Matter of Justice (justice’s name).”

(2) The petition shall state whether the petitioner desires to contest the determination, the recommendation, or both.

(3) The petition shall state in short and plain terms each defense to an alleged violation of the Canons of Judicial Conduct.

(4) The petition shall admit or deny each finding of fact made by the judicial council.  Any finding that is not denied shall be deemed admitted.

(5) The petition shall be verified by the petitioner.

(e) Response to petition.  If the judicial council desires to file a written response to the petition, it may do so within fourteen (14) days after it is served with the petition.  The failure to file a response shall not constitute an admission of the contents of the petition.

(f) Request to present additional evidence.  Either party may request permission to present additional evidence to the Supreme Court.  Within fourteen (14) days after the petition is filed, or within seven (7) days after the other party is granted permission to submit additional evidence, whichever is later, a party may file with the Supreme Court a request to present additional evidence.

(1) The request to present additional evidence shall include the following:

(A) the name, address, and telephone number of any person whose testimony is to be presented and a summary of the expected testimony;

(B) a copy of any documentary evidence to be presented;

(C) a statement of the reason such additional evidence was not presented to the judicial council during its proceedings.

(2) If the Supreme Court grants the request in whole or in part, the court may require that any additional testimony be presented by affidavit, by deposition, or to a special master appointed by the court who will make recommended findings of fact to the court.

(3) The party permitted to present additional testimony by deposition or to a special master shall file a transcript of such testimony with the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court shall specify the date by which such transcript must be filed, and the failure to file it timely without good cause shall constitute a waiver of the right to present such testimony.

(4) The Idaho Rules of Evidence shall apply to the admissibility of new evidence.  All objections to testimony presented by deposition or to a special master shall be made during the examination.  Objections to the admissibility of statements in an affidavit or to documents shall be made in writing within fourteen (14) days of the filing of such affidavit or document.

(g) Filing of judicial council records.  Within twenty-eight (28) days of receipt of the petition, the judicial council shall file with the clerk of the Supreme Court the following:

(1) a copy of all documents, transcripts, and exhibits presented to the judicial council in connection with the proceedings that are the subject of the petition, and the original of any item that cannot reasonably be photocopied;

(2) a transcript of the proceedings before the judicial council; and

(3) a record of all other dispositions of complaints against the petitioner.

The judicial council shall notify the petitioner of the filing of the judicial council records.

(h) Briefing.  Upon the filing of the judicial council records and of any additional evidence permitted by the Supreme Court, the clerk of the Supreme Court shall notify the parties of the briefing schedule.

(1) The petitioner’s opening brief shall be filed within twenty-one (21) days, the answering brief by the judicial council shall be filed within fourteen (14) days of the service of the petitioner’s brief, and the petitioner’s reply brief, if any, shall be filed within seven (7) days of the service of the judicial council’s brief.

(2) A party’s brief shall include a table of contents with page references; a table of cases (arranged alphabetically) and other authorities, with references to the page numbers where they are cited; a concise statement of the facts; a list of the issues presented; an argument addressing the contentions of the petitioner with respect to the issues presented on appeal, the reasons therefor, with citations to the authorities, statutes and parts of the transcript and record relied upon; and a conclusion stating the precise relief sought.

(3) No brief exceeding fifty pages, excluding addenda or exhibits, shall be filed without the consent of the Supreme Court.

(4) Each party shall file the original and six (6) copies of all briefs filed with the Supreme Court and shall serve two (2) copies thereof on the opposing party.  The original of each brief shall be signed by the person submitting the brief. 

(i) Oral argument.  There shall be oral argument on the petition at such time and place scheduled by the Supreme Court, unless the parties stipulate to submit the matter upon the briefs and such stipulation is approved by order of the Supreme Court.  The petitioner shall be entitled to open and close the argument.

(j) Chief Justice shall be recused.  The Chief Justice shall be recused from the proceedings in the Supreme Court.

(k) Decision by Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court shall review the record of the proceedings before the judicial council on the law and facts and shall order removal, discipline or retirement, as it finds just and proper, or wholly reject the recommendation.

Idaho Court Administrative Rule 73. Qualifications of Civil Mediators.

Each trial court administrator shall maintain a list of mediators who meet the qualifications of subsection A, and rosters from dispute resolution organizations that meet the criteria set forth in subsection B below.

(a) Mediation Registration -- Qualifications of Court-Appointed Mediators

1. The Administrative Director of the Courts shall compile and distribute at least annually a list of mediators. For that purpose, the Administrative Director of the Courts shall gather from all applicants an application demonstrating that the applicant:

(i) is a member of the Idaho State Bar;

(ii) has been admitted to practice law for not less than five (5) years; and

(iii) has attended a minimum of forty (40) hours of mediation training.

2. In order for a person to remain on the list of mediators maintained by the Administrative Director of the Courts, the mediator must submit proof that the mediator has completed a minimum of five (5) hours of additional training or education during the preceding three (3) calendar years on one of the following topics: mediation, conflict management, negotiation, interpersonal communication, conciliation, dispute resolution or facilitation. This training shall be acquired by completing a program approved by an accredited college or university or by one of the following organizations: Idaho State Bar, or its equivalent from another state; Idaho Mediation Association, or its equivalent from another state; or Society of Professionals in Dispute Resolutions; American College of Civil Trial Mediators; Northwest Institute for Dispute Resolution; Institute for Conflict Management; the National Academy of Distinguished Neutrals or any mediation training provided by the federal courts. Any program that does not meet this criteria may be submitted for approval either prior to or after completion. The requirement that continuing education for mediators include at least five (5) hours of training in mediation takes effect for renewals due on or after July 1, 2013.

(b) Mediation Registration -- Sponsors of Additional Rosters of Mediators

1. A public or private dispute resolution organization may make its roster of mediators available to the Administrative Director of the Courts for distribution to the trial court administrators if it documents that it has:

(i) an established selection and evaluation process for neutrals;

(ii) a mechanism for addresssing complaints brought against neutrals; and

(iii) a published code of ethics that the neutrals must follow.  A compilation of the organziation's selection, evaluation, published code of ethics, and complaint processes that can be distributed to the parties shall be provided.

(c) A list and roster(s) of mediators distributed by the Administrative Director of the Courts, pursuant to subsections (a) and (b), above, must contain the following information about each mediator:

(i) name, address, telephone and FAX number(s);

(ii) professional affiliation(s);

(iii) education;

(iv) legal and/or mediation training and experience; and

(v) fees and expenses.

(Adopted December 2, 2015, effective July 1, 2016.)

Idaho Court Administrative Rule 74. Registration of Private Civil Litigation Evaluators.

(a) Application for Registration as a Private Civil Litigation Evaluator. The Administrative Director of the Courts will compile a roster of private civil litigation evaluators.  Persons interested in being placed on this list must submit an application to the Administrative Director of the Courts on a form prescribed by the Supreme Court.  Applicants shall furnish, in addition to information relating to the applicant, proof that the applicant possesses the qualifications for registration on the Supreme Court's list of private civil case evaluators as set forth in this rule.  An applicant shall also be required to identify his or her area(s) of legal expertise and experience.    

(b) Qualifications of Private Civil Litigation Evaluators.  In order for a person to be placed on the Supreme Court’s roster of private civil litigation evaluators, a person must certify by application that he or she is an active member of the Idaho State Bar in good standing and has held such membership for a minimum period of seven (7) years; or is a justice or judge who has retired from the Idaho judiciary or who has been designated a senior judge by the Idaho Supreme Court pursuant to sections 1-2005 or 1-2221, Idaho Code. In addition, an applicant must be familiar with the Small Lawsuit Resolution Act (section 7-1501 et seq., Idaho Code) and the rules, practice and procedures of the Idaho Supreme Court governing proceedings in the district courts of the State of Idaho; and have the background experience and training to fairly, impartially and competently evaluate a civil case pursuant to the provisions of the Small Lawsuit Resolution Act.

(c) Roster of Civil Litigation Evaluators. The roster maintained by the Administrative Director of the Courts shall indicate, in addition to other information, the county or counties in which evaluators will accept appointments. The Administrative Director shall publish a copy of the roster, including information relating to the evaluator, on the Idaho Supreme Court’s website.
(d) Oath of Evaluator. In each case, prior to undertaking an evaluation, a private civil litigation evaluator must sign a written oath that he or she will faithfully and impartially discharge the obligations and duties of an evaluator in a timely manner as prescribed by law, and to represent that he or she does not have a conflict of interest regarding the parties or the subject matter of the dispute that would prevent him or her from rendering a fair and impartial opinion in the dispute.  The oath of the evaluator shall be filed with the clerk of the court and shall be substantially in the following form: 

I, ________________________________, hereby accept appointment as evaluator in the above-captioned case.
 
I certify that I meet the qualifications of an evaluator, and shall timely and impartially discharge my obligations and duties as an evaluator.  I have been informed of the identities of the parties to the case and the subject matter of the dispute and I have no conflict of interest or any bias that would prevent me from rendering a fair and impartial opinion in the dispute. 

___________________________________
Signature

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day of _______________, 20___.
 

___________________________________
Signature

(Adopted December 2, 2015, effective July 1, 2016.)

Idaho Court Administrative Rule 75.  Domestic Violence Evaluators; Advisory Board.

     (a)  Evaluators. Evaluators of persons who plead guilty or are found guilty of domestic assault or domestic battery under Idaho Code Section 18-918 shall be approved and shall serve under the following provisions:

          (1) Qualifications. An evaluator under Idaho Code Section 18-918(7)(a) shall have the following qualifications:

               (A) Licensed physician, licensed psychologist, licensed master social worker, licensed social worker if approved prior to July 1, 2008, licensed professional counselor, licensed marriage and family therapist, licensed registered nurse, licensed nurse practitioner or physician's assistant under the laws of the state of Idaho; an evaluator may be licensed in the state of Idaho or any other state;

               (B) Thirty (30) hours of specialized education or training in domestic violence within the previous two years including intimate partner violence and training or education in one or more of the following areas:  violence in families; child abuse; anger management; risk factors for future dangerousness; risk factors for lethality; causes of violence; or drug and alcohol abuse.  At least four (4) hours must be in the area of intimate partner violence and no more than four (4) of the thirty (30) hours may be in the area of drug and alcohol abuse.  The thirty (30) hours must also include an orientation course offered or approved by the Domestic Assault and Battery Evaluator Advisory Board and training in the utilization and interpretation of domestic violence assessment tools.  Up to fifteen (15) hours of the thirty (30) hours may be satisfied through approved online CEU programs. Ethics or supervisor training will not count toward the required thirty (30) hours of training.  The thirty (30) hours shall be acquired by completing program(s) approved or sponsored by one of the associations as listed in section (a)(2)(B);

               (C) One year experience after licensure in assessment or treatment of domestic violence related issues. The Domestic Assault and Battery Evaluator Advisory Board may request further consultation or training based upon the evaluator's experience;

               (D) Approved by the Domestic Assault and Battery Evaluator Advisory Board and maintained on a roster by the Administrative Director of the Courts as persons eligible to conduct evaluations of persons guilty of domestic assault or domestic battery. In the event there is no evaluator approved within the judicial district, then the requirements of (B), (C), and (D) may be waived by the court; and

               (E) The evaluator must, at his or her own expense, submit to a criminal history check as provided for in Rule 47, I.C.A.R.  Further, the evaluator must sign an Indirect Access Agreement and any other confidentiality agreements required by the Idaho State Police to allow the evaluator access to criminal justice information as required by Rule 33.3(a)(2)(K), Idaho Criminal Rules. 

          (2) Continuing Education of Evaluators. Beginning the next July 1 after an evaluator has been approved by the Domestic Assault and Battery Evaluator Advisory Board, the evaluator must take at least sixteen (16) hours of specialized training in domestic violence, or related topics in courses approved by the Domestic Assault and Battery Evaluator Advisory Board, in each and every two (2) year period following the July 1 date. An evaluator must file proof of compliance with this requirement with the Administrative Director of the Courts by July first of the year the continuing education is due. Along with proof of compliance, an evaluator must also send proof of current licensing. The Domestic Assault and Battery Evaluator Advisory Board may request further consultation or training based upon the quality of the evaluations or assessments submitted to the court or continuing education obtained.

               (A) The sixteen (16) hours of training required in this section shall be in one or more of the following areas: intimate partner violence; violence in families; child abuse; anger management; risk factors for future dangerousness; risk factors for lethality; causes of violence; or drug and alcohol abuse. Ethics or supervisor training will not count toward the required sixteen (16) hours of training. No more than four (4) of the sixteen (16) required hours may be in the area of drug and alcohol abuse. Up to eight (8) of the sixteen (16) required hours may be satisfied through approved participatory online CEU programs.

               (B) The sixteen (16) hours of required training in this section shall be acquired by completing a program approved or sponsored by one of the following associations or the national equivalent of any of these organizations: Idaho Psychiatric Association; Idaho Psychological Association; Idaho Nursing Association; Idaho Association of Social Workers; Idaho Counselors Association; Idaho Council on Domestic Violence and Victim Assistance; Idaho Coalition Against Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence; or the Idaho Supreme Court.

               (C) Any program that does not meet the criteria set out in both section (a)(2)(A) and section (a)(2)(B) may be submitted to the board for approval either prior to or after completion.

          (3) Evaluator Approval. All evaluators under Idaho Code Section 18-918 must be approved by the Domestic Assault and Battery Evaluator Advisory Board. Any person desiring to be approved as an evaluator shall file an application for approval with the Administrative Director of the Courts indicating the qualifications of the applicant and the dates and content of relevant training courses attended. An evaluator approved by the Domestic Assault and Battery Evaluator Advisory Board may continue in service from one calendar year to the next unless otherwise determined by the Domestic Assault and Battery Evaluator Advisory Board. The Administrative Director of the Courts shall maintain a statewide list of approved evaluators by the Domestic Assault and Battery Evaluator Advisory Board. The administrative district judge in each judicial district may, by administrative order, require evaluators to comply with additional criteria beyond those stated in subsections (a)(1), (a)(2) and Rule 33.3, Idaho Criminal Rules.

     (b) Advisory Board.

          (1) Members. There is hereby created a Domestic Assault and Battery Evaluator Advisory Board consisting of eight (8) members with experience and training in domestic violence. Membership shall consist of at least one member from subsection (A) and a combination of members from the following:

               (A) A district judge or magistrate judge appointed by the Supreme Court for a term of two (2) years, who shall serve as chair;

               (B) A social worker with experience in working with victims of domestic violence appointed by the Supreme Court for a term of two (2) years, upon submission of names by the Idaho State Social Work Licensing Board and/or other appropriate associations or entities;

               (C) A counselor with experience in working with victims of domestic violence appointed by the Supreme Court for a term of two (2) years, upon submission of names by the Idaho State Counselors Licensing Board and/or other appropriate associations or entities;

               (D) A psychologist appointed by the Supreme Court for a term of two (2) years, upon submission of names by the Idaho State Board of Psychologist Examiners and/or appropriate association;

               (E) A judge presiding over a domestic violence court appointed by the Supreme Court for a term of two (2) years;

               (F) A domestic court coordinator appointed by the Supreme Court for a term of two (2) years;

               (G) A domestic violence  offender intervention program provider appointed by the Supreme Court for a term of two (2) years, upon submission of names from the Idaho Council on Domestic Violence and Victim Assistance and/or other appropriate associations or entities;

               (H) A current or past domestic assault and battery evaluator appointed by the Supreme Court for a term of two (2) years; or

                (I) A health care provider with experience in working with victims of domestic violence appointed by the Supreme Court for a term of two (2) years, upon submission of names from appropriate associations or entities.

          (2) Powers of Advisory Board. The Domestic Assault and Battery Evaluator Advisory Board shall have the power to make the following recommendations to the Supreme Court:

               (A) Recommend qualifications and continuing education of evaluators under subsection (a) of this rule.

               (B) Review and recommend for approval or rejection applications of persons to be evaluators under this rule.

               (C) Recommend the required content and scope of reports of evaluators under Rule 33.3, Idaho Criminal Rules.

(Adopted March 24, 2017; effective July 1, 2017; amended December 14, 2017, effective July 1, 2018; amended April 4, 2022, effective April 4, 2022.)

Idaho Court Administrative Rule 76. Qualifications of Child Custody Mediators.

(a) Roster of Child Custody Mediators. The Idaho Supreme Court’s Administrative Office of the Courts (Administrative Office) will compile and maintain a roster of approved child custody mediators (Roster). The Administrative Office will determine if an applicant meets the qualifications to be placed on the Roster and will ensure that mediators on the Roster meet continuing education requirements, and obligations under this rule. The Roster will be made available to the public and will contain the following information about each mediator:

(1) name, address, telephone, e-mail address;

(2) license or degree; and

(3) a list of counties and districts the mediator is willing to conduct mediations in.

(b) Application. Any applicant seeking to be placed on the Roster must submit the following to the Administrative Office:

(1) an application for approval, which includes an Affidavit of Compliance signed by the applicant attesting that the applicant has fulfilled the requirements of this rule;

(2) a copy of the applicant’s applicable degree, licensure, or certificate; and

(3) proof of completion of the required mediation training.

(c) Degree, License, or Certificate. For placement on the Roster, an applicant must have at least one of the following professional credentials:

(1) Professional Licensure. Current membership, office, or licensure in one of the following:

(A) Idaho Judiciary,

(B) Idaho State Bar Association;

(C) psychologist;

(D) professional counselor;

(E) clinical professional counselor;

(F) master social worker;

(G) clinical or independent practice social worker;

(H) marriage and family therapist;

(I) certified school counselor;

(J) certified school psychologist; or

(K) any substantially similar and applicable professional license.

(2) Degree. A bachelor’s degree from an accredited college or university; or

(3) Mediation Organization Membership and Experience. Membership in one of the following mediation organizations:

(A) Association for Conflict Resolution at the advanced practitioner level;

(B) Idaho Mediation Association as a Certified Professional Mediator (CPM); or

(C) a national organization with equivalent standards for membership.

(d) New Applicant Training. Within 3 years prior to submission of an application, new applicants must complete the training set forth below.

(1) Approved Training Programs. Training must be acquired by completing a program approved by one of the following:

(A) the Idaho State Bar or its equivalent in another state;

(B) an accredited college or university;

(C) the Idaho Mediation Association or its equivalent in another state; or

(D) the American College of Civil Trial Mediators or similar national organization.

Any program that does not meet this criterion may be submitted for consideration for approval by the Administrative Office.

(2) General Mediation Training. All new applicants seeking to be placed on the Roster must have general mediation training that includes the following topics:

(A) information gathering (intake, obtaining facts, screening issues);

(B) mediator relationship skills (neutrality, confidentiality);

(C) communication skills (active listening, reframing issues, clarifying);

(D) problem solving skills (identifying problems, positions, needs, interests);

(E) conflict management skills (reducing tensions, power imbalances);

(F) mediation processes and techniques (case management, drafting agreements); and

(G) a minimum of 2 hours of mediation ethics.

(3) Child Custody Mediation Training. All new applicants seeking to be placed on the Roster must complete specific child custody mediation training that includes the following topics:

(A) child custody;

(B) psychological issues in separation, divorce, and family dynamics;

(C) domestic violence;

(D) issues and needs of children;

(E) child development; and

(F) conflict resolution theory.

(4) Required Hours.

(A) Professional Licensure. The applicant must have completed a minimum of 40 hours of General Mediation Training as described in (d)(2), with 20 of the hours in Child Custody Mediation as described in (d)(3).

(B) Degree or Mediation Organization Membership. The applicant must have completed a minimum of 80 hours of General Mediation Training as described in (d)(2) with 40 of the hours in Child Custody Mediation as described in (d)(3).

(5) Additional Criteria. The Administrative District Judge in each of Idaho’s judicial districts may, by administrative order, require applicants to comply with additional criteria beyond those stated above. The Administrative District Judge may also, by administrative order, appoint an individual that has substantially complied with the requirements set forth above.

(e) Renewal Applications and Continuing Education. To remain on the Roster, a mediator must complete 15 hours of continuing education from an approved training course as provided in paragraph (d)(1), every 3 years beginning the next July 1 after a mediator has been placed on the Roster. Mediators on the Roster are responsible for submitting continuing education requirements and keeping their contact information current. The 15 hours must include training in the following areas:

(1) general mediation training as described in (d)(2); or

(2) child custody mediation training as described in (d)(3); and

(3) a minimum of 2 hours of mediation ethics.

(f) Proof of Compliance.

(1) Hours Defined. For the purposes of this rule, an hour is defined as 60 minutes of instructional time or activity.

(2) Training Format. Training may be completed in one of the following formats with a certificate of attendance or participation:

(A) live lecture or seminar;

(B) webinar or online presentation, live or recorded; or

(C) up to 5 hours when the mediator is the instructor of an approved mediation course.

(3) Certificate of Attendance. As proof of compliance with training requirements, a certificate of attendance must include:

(A) the name of the training program;

(B) the name of the participant in attendance;

(C) the topic of the training;

(D) the date of the training; and

(E) the number of hours completed.

(g) Failure to File Proof of Compliance. If the Administrative Office does not receive the mediator’s proof of compliance by July 1 the year it is due, the mediator will be removed from the Roster. Once a mediator is removed from the Roster, the mediator must reapply as a new mediator and meet the requirements set forth in this rule.

(Adopted November 6, 2025, effective January 1, 2026.)

Idaho Court Administrative Rule 76A. Removal of Child Custody Mediators from Roster.

(a) Purpose. The purpose of this rule is to:

(1) establish a quality control process for child custody mediators (mediators) who are on the Idaho Supreme Court’s Roster of Child Custody Mediators (Roster), and

(2) allow for removal of a mediator from the Roster if a complaint is upheld.

(b) Grounds for Removal. The following actions or omissions constitute misconduct and may be grounds for removal of a mediator from the Roster:

(1) violation of a federal, state, or local criminal code or regulation when the offense adversely affects the mediator’s ability or fitness to perform their duties or may have an adverse effect on the administration of justice or public if the mediator continues to work as a child custody mediator in the courts;

(2) a current or past civil protection order or criminal no contact order against him or her; when such order adversely affects the mediator’s ability or fitness to perform mediator duties or may have an adverse effect on the administration of justice, or public if the mediator continues to work as a child custody mediator in the courts;

(3) fraud, dishonesty, or corruption related to the functions and duties of a mediator;

(4) knowing and willful disclosure of confidential or privileged information obtained while serving as a mediator, unless required by law;

(5) incompetence, unprofessional, or unethical behavior;

(6) failure to follow standards prescribed by law or professional organizations, or as set forth in the Idaho Rules of Family Law Procedure, court policy, procedure, or order, including engaging in conduct that constitutes discrimination or harassment;

(7) misrepresentation of credentials or other credentials or other material misstatement of fact relative to appointment as a mediator, or to an application for placement on the Roster; or

(8) noncompliance with any continuing education requirements.

(c) Complaint Submission and Review.

(1) Submission of Complaint. Anyone with knowledge of misconduct by a mediator on the Roster may submit a complaint.

(A) Timing. A complaint must be submitted within 180 days of the discovery of the facts constituting the alleged misconduct to the Administrative Office of the Courts (Administrative Office).

(B) Contents. The complaint must state, to the extent known, the following:

(i) date, time, and location (including judicial district), of the alleged misconduct;

(ii) case name and number of the proceeding in which the alleged misconduct occurred, if applicable;

(iii) description of the alleged misconduct and why the complainant believes it was improper; and

(iv) name, title and telephone number of potential witnesses.

(2) Review of Complaint. The Statewide Manager for Family Court Services or designee (Manager) will review the complaint within a reasonable amount of time, not to exceed 14 days from receipt, to determine whether the allegations, if true, are grounds for removal from the Roster.

(A) No Grounds. If the Manager determines that the complaint does not allege misconduct that, if true, are grounds for removal, they will forward the complaint and a recommendation to the Director of the Court Services Division or designee (CSD Director).

(i) If the CSD Director agrees, the Manager will dismiss the complaint and notify the complainant in writing.

(ii) If the CSD Director determines that the complaint alleges misconduct that, if true, are grounds for removal and decides further action or review is needed, the complaint will be forwarded to the Director of Human Resources or designee (HR Director) for review or investigation under subparagraph (d)(1).

(B) Grounds. If the Manager determines that the complaint alleges conduct that, if true, are grounds for removal, the Manager will forward the complaint and a recommendation to the CSD Director. The CSD Director will review the complaint and recommendation, and forward the information, along with any additional recommendations to the HR Director for review or investigation under subparagraph (d)(1).

(d) Investigation and Findings.

(1) Investigation.

(A) Notice. Upon receipt of the request to review or investigate, the HR Director will provide the mediator with a copy of the complaint and an opportunity to respond. The review or investigation must be completed within 35 days of receipt of the request to investigate.

(B) Interim Suspension. In the interest of the administration of justice or the public, the Supreme Court may suspend the mediator from court appointments and the Roster during an investigation or until a final decision is made.

(C) Response from Mediator. Within 14 days of receipt of notice from the HR Director, the mediator may submit any relevant evidence or information in writing to the HR Director. The HR Director will review all information provided and will include any response from the mediator in the investigative report.

(D) Meetings with Mediator and/or Witnesses. The HR Director may conduct meetings with the mediator, complainant, and witnesses. Meetings may occur in-person, over the telephone, or video conferencing. The HR Director may contact witnesses and give evidence the weight they deem appropriate. Meetings are confidential, unless otherwise requested by the mediator and agreed to by the HR Director.

(E) Report of Investigation. At the conclusion of the investigation, the HR Director will submit findings and recommendations to the CSD Director which includes specific factual findings as to whether misconduct occurred that are grounds for removal.

(2) Findings.

(A) No Grounds. If upon review of the Report of Investigation, the CSD Director determines that no grounds for removal exist, the CSD Director must dismiss the complaint and notify the mediator and complainant in writing. The notification must include an explanation of the reason for the determination.

(B) Additional Information. If the CSD Director determines that additional information is required before deciding, a written request must be sent to the mediator with specific questions posed. All questions must be answered and returned within 7 days. If the mediator fails to respond in writing within the allotted time, the CSD Director may determine that grounds for removal exist and, exercising discretion, remove the mediator’s name from the Roster.

(C) Grounds for Removal Present. If upon review of the Report of Investigation, the CSD Director determines by a preponderance of evidence that grounds for removal exist, the CSD Director must send the mediator the written determination, including a summary of the allegations contained in the complaint, the relevant investigative findings, citations to any rules or procedures that were violated, and notice of removal from the Roster. The CSD Director’s determination must be made within 14 days of receipt of the Report of Investigation. Failure to file an appeal under subparagraph (e)(2)(A) within 14 days of the determination will result in a final decision and removal from the Roster.

(e) Hearing.

(1) Request for Hearing. If the mediator contests the CSD Director’s determination, the mediator may file an appeal with the Administrative Director of the Courts and request a hearing before the Child Custody Mediation Subcommittee (Subcommittee). The Administrative Director of the Courts may appoint an advisor to assist the Subcommittee with conducting the hearing including the preparation of notices, legal research, and drafting written findings.

(2) Hearing Procedures.

(A) Notice of Appeal. The appeal and any request for hearing must be made within 14 days of the CSD Director's written determination. Failure to file an appeal within the timeframe will result in a final decision and removal from the Roster.

(B) Hearing Discretionary. The Subcommittee may set the matter for hearing or decide the matter based on the complaint, Report of Investigation, and the information submitted without a hearing. If a request for hearing is granted, the hearing must take place within 42 days of the written request.

(C) Discovery. Discovery shall not be permitted.

(D) Hearing Recorded. The hearing must be recorded electronically and is closed to the public, except the complainant may attend with legal counsel.

(E) Legal Representation. The mediator may be represented by legal counsel at his/her own expense.

(F) Evidence. The Idaho Rules of Evidence do not apply. The Subcommittee will consider any relevant evidence presented, giving such evidence the weight deemed appropriate. The Subcommittee may call witnesses and consider or clarify any relevant evidence presented. At the hearing, the CSD Director, the complainant, and the mediator may introduce relevant evidence including calling and questioning witnesses.

(f) Final Decision.

(1) Factors to Consider. If the Subcommittee finds by a preponderance of evidence that there are grounds for removal under subdivision (b) of this rule, the Subcommittee will recommend to the Supreme Court removal from the Roster as deemed appropriate. In determining whether removal is appropriate, the Subcommittee and the Supreme Court will consider:

(A) the nature and seriousness of the misconduct;

(B) any pattern of misconduct;

(C) the effect of the misconduct on the court system or the complainant;

(D) the amount of experience the mediator has as a mediator; and

(E) any other mitigating or aggravating information presented.

(2) No Hearing Held. If no hearing is held, within 14 days of receipt of the complaint, the Subcommittee must issue written findings and recommendations for consideration by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court will consider the findings and issue a final decision, within 21 days of receiving the findings.

(3) Hearing Held. If a hearing is held, within 21 days of the conclusion of the hearing, the Subcommittee must issue written findings and recommendations to the Supreme Court for a final decision. The Supreme Court will consider the findings and issue a final decision, within 21 days of receiving the findings.

(4) Based on a Majority. The Subcommittee must act based on majority vote of its members.

(5) Written Decision. The Supreme Court must advise the mediator and the complainant of its final decision in writing with a copy to the Administrative Director of the Courts. If the Supreme Court's decision includes removal from the Roster, the Supreme Court must state the reasons for the removal and specify any conditions that must be met in the event the mediator wishes to apply for reinstatement on the Roster. The Supreme Court's decision is final and not subject to further review or appeal.

(g) Reinstatement. Mediators who are removed from the Roster for misconduct or noncompliance may apply to the Supreme Court for reinstatement according to the terms and conditions set forth in the Court’s rules and as further provided in the final decision. A mediator may apply for reinstatement no earlier than two years following the date of the order removing the mediator from the Roster. The Supreme Court has sole discretion in granting or denying reinstatement, including the discretion to impose further conditions on reinstatement in light of the mediator’s specific circumstances.

(h) Confidentiality.

(1) Complaints and investigations are confidential in accordance with I.C.A.R. 32, except when a mediator is removed from the Roster, the CSD Director’s determination and the final decision, including grounds for the removal and the facts cited in support of the determination or decision, must be made available to the public upon request.

(2) The Administrative Office of the Courts will provide information in accordance with I.C.A.R. 32 to judicial officers, Trial Court Administrators, and court coordinators concerning the removal of any mediators from the Roster.

(Adopted February 3, 2026, effective February 3, 2026.)

Idaho Court Administrative Rule 91. Guardian ad Litem Grant Program Administration.

(a) Who may apply. Any eligible person, organization, corporation, or agency may apply for funds authorized under Title 16, Chapter 16, Idaho Code for the development and operation of a guardian ad litem (GAL) program. Applicants that have previously been awarded grant funding and have not met program requirements as set forth in the Idaho Supreme Court Policies and Procedures (Policies and Procedures) for GAL grant programs may not be considered for funding. Eligible applicants must:

(1) Comply with all program requirements set forth in Idaho Code §§ 16-1632 and 16-1633 and agree to:

(A) Establish, maintain, and coordinate a districtwide GAL program consistent with the requirements of the Child Protective Act and to the extent possible, has established a districtwide program to recruit GAL volunteers sufficient to provide services in each county of the judicial district.

(B) Provide necessary administrative and staffing services as may from time to time be required.

(C) Act as a volunteer coordinator and strive to provide every child under the age of 12 years, who has an open child protection case, a GAL volunteer throughout each stage of any child protective proceeding and strives to provide a GAL volunteer to children age 12 and over for whom the court has appointed a GAL.

(D) Establish a program for attorneys to represent GAL volunteers, whether or not appointed by the court in conjunction with the local, districtwide, and state bar associations.

(E) Develop uniform criteria to screen, select, train, and remove volunteer GALs.

(F) Establish a priority list (triage plan) for those proceedings under the Child Protective Act in which guardians ad litem shall be appointed in districts where there are insufficient numbers of guardians ad litem.

(G) Submit an annual report for the preceding fiscal year to the grant administrator for delivery to the legislature.

(H) Confirm that all criminal background checks are complete and up to date on all staff, board members and active GAL volunteers.

(I) Confirm that all program GAL volunteers perform all the duties as listed under I.C. § 16-1633.

(2) Comply with all program requirements set forth in Idaho Juvenile Rule 35;

(3) Have a written policy and process to ensure that any person in training to serve or who is serving as a GAL has completed a criminal records check prior to having access to program case files or children being served by the program;

(4) Have a written process to temporarily inactivate GAL volunteers or staff members whose criminal records checks have expired;

(5) Have in place a process for providing timely and accurate data requested by the AOC;

(6) Have a financial accounting system and records to accurately account for any funds awarded under the GAL Grant Program; and

(7) Have established internal control policies and procedures.

(b) Grant Application Forms. The grant solicitation is posted on the Idaho Supreme Court website annually with detailed instructions on how to submit an application. All grant applications must be submitted on the most current approved form within the timelines provided in the Policies and Procedures.

(c) Guardian ad Litem Grant Review Board; Members. Members of the Guardian ad Litem Grant Review Board (Board) will be appointed by the Idaho Supreme Court for a three-year term. The Board will consist of nine (9) voting and three (3) non-voting members with experience and training in the child welfare system. The board shall be staffed by the GAL grant specialist and attended by a member of the AOC's finance department.

(1) Membership shall consist of two (2) members each from subsections A and B, and five (5) members from a combination of subsections C through H:

(A) 2 Representative(s) selected upon nomination from the Idaho Legislature;

(B) 2 Representative(s) selected upon nomination from the Governor’s office;

(C) Representative(s) from the Idaho Casey Family Programs;

(D) Representative(s) from a federally recognized Idaho Indian Tribe;

(E) Attorney(s) who represents parties in Child Protective Act cases;

(F) Former foster youth;

(G) Current or former foster parent(s); or

(H) Parent(s) with lived experience in the child welfare system.

(2) A magistrate judge, a guardian ad litem volunteer, and a person with a strong financial background will serve as non-voting members of the Board.

(3) The principal staff functions of the Board will be located with the AOC.

(d) Powers and Duties of the Grant Review Board. The Board will:

(1) Review the grant applications and attachments; and

(2) Issue a recommendation to the Idaho Supreme Court for approval or denial of grant applications. The Board may request and/or use additional information prior to reaching a decision.

(Adopted November 3, 2021, effective January 1, 2022.)

Idaho Court Administrative Rule 100. Hospitalization of Mentally Ill, Detention Without a Hearing.

(a) Notice to Court of Detention and Placement at a Facility. Whenever a person is taken into custody or detained by a peace officer or medical staff member without a court order pursuant to Idaho Code section 66-326(1) or Idaho Code section 16-2413, the evidence supporting the claim that: (i) the person is gravely disabled due to mental illness or poses an imminent danger, as provided in Idaho Code section 66-326, or (ii) that an emergency exists with respect to the child, as provided in Idaho Code section 16-2414 must be electronically filed with the court by the prosecuting attorney within twenty four (24) hours of the time the person was placed in custody or detained.

(b) Order; Transmission; After Hours, Weekends, and Holidays. 

(1) Order.  If the court finds the person to be gravely disabled due to mental illness or poses an imminent danger, the court will issue a temporary custody order requiring the person to be held in a facility and requiring an examination of the person by a designated examiner within twenty-four (24) hours of the issuance of the temporary custody order.

(2) Transmission.

(A) A temporary custody order may be issued electronically to the prosecuting attorney, the peace officer or medical staff member who initiated the detention, or any individual or agency who is charged with facilitating or conducting the examination.  

(B) If the prosecuting attorney seeks a temporary custody order after office hours, during the weekend, or on a holiday pursuant to paragraph (b)(3) of this rule, the court may issue the order based on information communicated by telephone or other reliable electronic means.  When the court’s findings are based on a sworn oral statement, the statement must be recorded and is considered part of the record.  All sworn oral statements given in support of an application for a temporary custody order must be given on oath or affirmation and must identify the speaker.  The judge may then verbally authorize the prosecuting attorney to sign the judge’s name, which verbal authorization must be recorded.

(3) After Hours, Weekends, and Holidays.  If the prosecuting attorney seeks a temporary custody order after office hours, during the weekend, or on a holiday, the prosecuting attorney will contact the on-call judge and present the evidence supporting the claim.  If the judge issues a temporary custody order, the prosecuting attorney will serve it on the peace officer or medical staff member who initiated the detention and any individual or agency who is charged with facilitating or conducting the examination.  On the next judicial day, the prosecuting attorney will file the evidence supporting the claim and temporary custody order.  The clerk will accept the evidence supporting the claim and previously signed temporary custody order and will affix a date stamp that reflects the original issuance of the order.  If the previously signed temporary custody order was signed by the prosecuting attorney on behalf of the judge upon verbal authorization pursuant to paragraph (b)(2)(B) of this rule, the sworn oral statement as recorded must also be filed with the court and the order must be returned to the judge who authorized the signing of his or her name on it.  The judge must then endorse his or her name on the previously signed order.  Any failure of the judge to make such an endorsement does not in itself invalidate the order.

(c) Examination and Report. If the court issues a temporary custody order requiring the person to be held in a facility and requiring an examination of the person by a designated examiner, the designated examiner's findings must be reported to the prosecuting attorney within twenty-four (24) hours of the examination. Upon receipt of the designated examiner's findings, the prosecuting attorney shall, as soon as reasonably practicable but in no event no later than 24 hours following receipt, file such findings with the court.

(d) Electronic Signatures.  An electronic signature may be used on any document that is required or permitted under this rule and that is transmitted electronically, including a temporary custody order requiring the person to be held in a facility and requiring an examination of the person by a designated examiner, a written certification or declaration under penalty of perjury, an affidavit, or a notary’s seal, in accordance with Idaho Rules for Electronic Filing and Service 9.

(Adopted March 30, 2023, effective May 1, 2023; amended April 30, 2024, effective April 30, 2024.)

Idaho Court Administrative Rule 101. Persons with Neurocognitive Disorders, Protective Custody Without a Hearing. 

(a) Notice to Court of Protective Custody Without a Hearing. When a person is taken into custody or detained by a peace officer or medical staff member without a court order under Idaho Code § 56-2104, the evidence supporting the claim that a person with a neurocognitive disorder is an imminent danger to injure themselves or others as provided in Idaho Code section § 56-2104(1), must be electronically filed with the court by the prosecuting attorney within 24 hours of the time the person was placed in custody or detained.

(b) Order; Transmission; After Hours, Weekends, and Holidays. 

(1) Order. If the court finds there is reason to believe the person in protective custody is likely to have a neurocognitive disorder and is imminently dangerous to themselves or others, the court will issue a temporary protective placement custody order requiring the person to be held in a hospital and requiring an examination of the person by a health care provider in the hospital within 24 hours of the entry of the court’s order. 

(2) Transmission.

(A) A temporary protective placement custody order may be issued electronically to:

(i)  the prosecuting attorney;

(ii)  the peace officer who initiated the detention;

(iii)  the medical staff member who initiated the detention; or

(iv)  the hospital charged with facilitating or conducting the examination.

(B) If a prosecuting attorney seeks a temporary protective placement custody order after office hours, on a weekend, or a holiday under paragraph (b)(3) of this rule, the court may issue the order based on information communicated by telephone or other reliable electronic means.

(i)  When the court’s findings are based on a sworn oral statement, the statement must be recorded and will be part of the record.

(ii)  Sworn oral statements given in support of an application for a temporary protective placement custody order must be under oath or affirmation and identify the speaker.

(iii)  The judge may verbally authorize the prosecuting attorney to sign the judge’s name. The judge’s verbal authorization must be recorded.

(3) After Hours, Weekends, and Holidays.

(A) If a prosecuting attorney seeks a temporary protective placement custody order after office hours, on a weekend, or a holiday, the prosecuting attorney must contact the on-call judge and present the evidence supporting the claim.

(B) If the judge issues a temporary protective placement custody order, the prosecuting attorney must serve it on:

(i)  the peace officer or medical staff member who initiated the detention; and

(ii)  on the hospital charged with facilitating or conducting the examination.

(C) On the next judicial day, the prosecuting attorney must file the evidence supporting the claim and temporary protective placement custody order. The clerk must date stamp with the order’s original issue date.

(D) If the temporary protective placement custody order was signed by the prosecuting attorney on behalf of the judge on verbal authorization under paragraph (b)(2)(B), the sworn oral statement as recorded must also be filed with the court and the order must be returned to the judge who authorized the signing of his or her name on it. The judge must sign the previously signed order. Failure of the judge to sign the order does not invalidate the order.

(c) Examination and Report.  If the court issues a temporary protective placement custody order requiring the person to be held in a hospital and examined by a health care provider in the hospital, the health care provider must report their findings to the prosecuting attorney within 24 hours of the examination. Upon receipt of the findings, the prosecuting attorney must file the findings as soon as reasonably practicable but within 24 hours.

(d) Electronic Signatures. An electronic signature may be used on a document required or permitted under this rule that is transmitted electronically. This includes a temporary protective placement custody order requiring a person to be held in a hospital and examined by a health care provider, a written certification or declaration under penalty of perjury, an affidavit, or a notary’s seal, under Idaho Rule for Electronic Filing and Service 9.

(Adopted September 30, 2024, effective October 1, 2024; amended June 3, 2025, effective July 1, 2025.)