FAIRBANKS -- James Mooney says his court record haunts him, even though he did nothing wrong, which is why he supports a bill being considered by the Alaska Legislature that would prevent public access to legal documents in cases where someone has been acquitted or the charges have been dropped.

"It ruined my life, just the accusations," he said of a sexual assault case in which he was acquitted of the five charges against him following a jury trial. "It's a horrible thing to go through."

He told legislators Monday that he was innocent, but potential employers still hold the charges against him. "I basically am all but hired, they say they have to run a background check, it's just a formality, they say. After they run the background check, they never call me back. They don't return my calls," Mooney said.

"I'm an innocent man and it feels like I have a record," he said. "I don't deserve to go through this."

Mooney testified before the Senate Finance Committee on a bill by Eagle River Sen. Fred Dyson that would prevent public access to documents such as those in Mooney's case.

While several people spoke or wrote about false accusations and cases in which there were arrests but no charges, there has also been written testimony that the bill would endanger victims in Alaska.

Not that many years ago, it required a trip to the state courthouse to see if someone had been charged with a crime. This limited the distribution of court records. Now all that is required for anyone to look up a summary of charges are a few clicks on a keyboard in Alaska's CourtView database.

With the wider dissemination of information comes a dilemma about how and when it is used in society. Court records regarding cases that have led to acquittals or dismissals have long been treated as public records. The difference today is that the public has easier access. The state does not publish full court documents online, only the names, charges and status reports.

Dyson's bill, if approved, would place thousands of cases every year off limits to the public. Of the 6,675 felony cases filed in fiscal year 2013, the state dismissed 1,289, according to committee testimony. Of 29,562 misdemeanor cases, the state dismissed 9,508.

Ryan Kennedy submitted a letter backing Dyson's bill, saying that he had two arrests on his record years ago that were never prosecuted.

"In both cases, the problem was I was young and had a big mouth. I was under the naïve impression that if you mouthed off to a cop it was OK as long as you weren't actually doing anything wrong," he wrote. Kennedy and others mentioned examples of old records following someone around even when charges were never filed.

Dyson said that people who have been arrested, but not charged, or those who have been acquitted or had their charges dismissed have a right to privacy. The records would be available to attorneys, law enforcement officers and others with a need to know, but not to the general public.

"As you would expect, many employers and landlords and even some people that are playing the dating game will often go on to CourtView to see if indeed the person that they're considering has a record," Dyson said. "For most folks, being human, you're looking at a number of people to hire and one of them has an arrest record out there, you're gonna be inclined to go with somebody else."

Dyson mentioned the case of Nancy Means in Anchorage, who was arrested on Black Friday in Anchorage in 2011. When she reportedly would not give the officer her phone number, she was arrested for DUI. A breath test later showed no alcohol in her system. She still has an arrest record that is available on the CourtView system and has filed a lawsuit against the Municipality of Anchorage.

Dr. Norman Means of Palmer, Nancy's father, said the arrest remains on her record and could have a negative impact on her in the future.

"We have a system here in this state which it's impossible to get your record expunged," or to have it sealed from public view, he said.

In the opinion of Taylor Winston, director of the Alaska Office of Victims' Rights, the law should remain as is to protect the public. She said there is nothing wrong with going on CourtView to look up whether charges have been filed against someone.

Winston, a former prosecutor, said that a verdict of "not guilty" does not necessarily mean that someone is innocent, only that the government failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

She said that cases are dismissed for many reasons, including deals made to get a plea in another case or because witnesses refuse to talk, are unable to testify or they change their stories. Winston said evidence can be suppressed or lost and lab results can be inconclusive, leading prosecutors to dismiss cases.

She said that someone looking for a babysitter should be able to go to CourtView and decide whether to entrust that person with the care of a child.

"This bill takes a very paternalistic position that the government knows better than citizens about how to use information," Winston wrote. "It is the government saying citizens are too stupid or too unsophisticated to understand it."

Kathy Hansen, a staff attorney in the Office of Victims' Rights for 11 years, wrote that the bill would jeopardize the safety of every domestic violence victim who recants testimony, leading to a dismissal or acquittal. She also said there are many young victims who are unable to testify about abuse by a family member.

"Sometimes the jury thinks something has happened, but does not feel the state proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt," she said.

She said the state should not attempt to scrub all the information about trials from the public record because of an acquittal.

"Removing them from public view and scrutiny would rewrite history to the public's detriment," she said.

Carmen Gutierrez, a former criminal defense attorney and former deputy commissioner of the Department of Corrections, said that removing documents from public inspection would be fair to those who are not convicted. She said the "arrest often becomes synonymous with conviction in the mind of those doing the inspecting."

This can make it hard to find a job, rent an apartment or "live a life free of stigmatization for a crime for which the person was never convicted."

Regarding domestic violence cases, she said the police are called on to make snap decisions and the quality of those decisions often depends upon the experience and judgment of the officer. "In some cases, upon more careful review and with the benefit of additional facts, the prosecutor determines the charge doesn't merit prosecution and dismisses it," she said. In those cases, the person arrested "is forever stigmatized by his arrest."