More states rely on judicial expungement to avoid collateral consequences
Oklahoma is the most recent state to expand its expungement laws to make more people eligible for record-clearing at an earlier date. While the specific changes adopted by the Oklahoma legislature are relatively modest, involving reduced waiting periods and fewer disqualifying priors, they are significant as part of a national trend toward enlarging this type of “forgetting” relief for people with minor criminal records. Details of Oklahoma’s law are available here.
Alabama’s new expungement law is the first record-closing law in that state and applies only to non-conviction records. Arkansas and Minnesota broadened or consolidated existing expungement schemes that were already quite extensive. The Indiana expungement scheme is entirely new and particularly comprehensive and progressive. (An analysis of the new law by its primary sponsor in the Indiana legislature will be posted in this space very soon.) The effect of this type of “forgetting” relief varies widely from state to state, from complete destruction of records in states like Pennsylvania and Connecticut to more limited relief in Kansas and Indiana, where expunged records remain accessible to some employers as well as law enforcement.
The other type of individualized judicial relief from collateral consequences that is growing in popularity relies not on limiting public access to a person’s criminal record, but instead on removing legal barriers and providing reassurances to employers and other decision-makers. Judicial certificate programs have been enacted in the past year by Vermont and Rhode Island, following similar programs enacted in 2012 in Ohio and North Carolina. This more transparent “forgiving” relief tends to apply to a broader range of offenses than expungement, and may meet less resistance from law enforcement, business and the media than record-closing laws.
Mainstream law reform organizations like the Uniform Law Commission and the American Law Institute have adopted the “forgiving” as opposed to the “forgetting” model of relief represented by expungement and sealing statutes. Vermont is the first state to enact the Uniform Collateral Consequences of Conviction Act in its entirety, as described here. The ALI’s approval of the Model Penal Code: Sentencing collateral consequences provisions is described here.
A 50-state summary chart of judicial relief provisions, prepared for the NACDL Restoration of Rights Project, is available here. The Wall Street Journal will publish a national study of expungement laws sometime in the next few weeks.
- Scholarship roundup II – two new articles by Jack Chin - April 13, 2017
- Restrictions on access to criminal records: A national survey - March 9, 2017
- When does the Second Amendment protect a convicted person’s right to bear arms? - September 20, 2016
- Law firm steps up to aid reentry - August 11, 2016
- What (if anything) does the Virginia voting rights decision tell us about the president’s pardon power? - July 24, 2016
- “Divergent moral vision” — Collateral consequences in Europe and the U.S. - July 19, 2016
- Collateral consequences: punishment or regulation? - June 23, 2016
- “Vermont sheriff risks his career by hiring a sex offender” - May 5, 2016
- A plea to stop labeling people who have a criminal record - April 25, 2016
- Federal sentencing and collateral consequences - April 15, 2016