Author Archives: CCRC Staff

Vermont AG supports opportunities for diversion and expungement

Vermont Business Magazine recently showcased the leadership shown by Vermont Attorney General TJ Donovan in criminal justice reform.  Most notably, he has streamlined the process for seeking expungement, and increased opportunities to avoid a record entirely through greater use of diversion for less serious offenses.  The importance of enabling people to avoid a criminal record altogether through these two mechanisms cannot be overstated.  Donovan also championed last year’s bail reforms that will ensure low-income individuals are not held in jail prior to trial simply because they are poor. The article is worth posting in full as an illustration of a new breed of prosecutor committed to reducing the ill effects of the “tough on crime” era on individuals and communities least able to overcome them.

Read more

“Managing Collateral Consequences in the Information Age”

“Managing Collateral Consequences in the Information Age” is the title of a symposium issue of the Federal Sentencing Reporter.  It is composed of papers prepared for a Roundtable conference on criminal records issues jointly sponsored by the American Law Institute and the National Conference of State Legislatures in January 2018, and associated primary source materials.  The issue’s Table of Contents shows the breadth and variety of topics covered. An introductory essay by Margaret Love summarizes the approach to managing collateral consequences in the revised sentencing articles of the Model Penal Code, and the seemingly contrary trends in criminal records management in state legislatures in recent years.  She describes each of the papers in the issue, and policy recommendations tentatively reached by participants in the January Roundtable.

  • Alessandro Corda of Queens University (Belfast) contributes a discussion of “American exceptionalism” in criminal records matters, and proposes a way of neutralizing their malign effect.
  • Scholars and practitioners describe how relief schemes work (or don’t work) in states as diverse as:
    • North Carolina (John Rubin, UNC/Government)
    • Tennessee (Joy Radice, UT/Law)
    • Nevada (Sen. Tick Segerblom and Nick Anthony, NV Legislature)
    • California (Jack Chin, UC Davis/Law; Eliza Hersh)
    • Indiana (Josh Gaines and Margaret Love, CCRC)
  • Douglas Berman and Nora Demleitner write about subsets of the collateral consequences problem (sex offender registration and marijuana decriminalization).
The issue also publishes the provisions of the Model Penal Code: Sentencing on non-conviction dispositions and on collateral consequences, and a collection of reports and other materials from the Collateral Consequences Resource Center.
The University of California Press has generously made available to non-subscribers the entire FSR issue for downloading at this link.

SC legislature overrides veto to broaden expungement laws

On June 27, the South Carolina legislature took the extraordinary step of overriding Governor McMaster’s veto of a bill that expanded eligibility for expungement in several significant (if relatively modest) ways.  House Bill 3209 is now law, and will take effect in six months.  This is one of the very few times in recent years that a state legislature has overridden a governor’s veto of a bill intended to improve opportunities for people with a criminal record.

The new law, which will go into effect after six months, extends expungement eligibility to first offense simple drug possession (after three years) or possession with intent to distribute (after twenty years), and to conviction of repealed offenses.  It also repeals first offender limits on expungement eligibility for convictions in magistrates court (summary offenses) and in juvenile proceedings, and applies all of these authorities retroactively.  HR 3209 also restructures fee provisions and authorizes private donations to defray costs for those who cannot afford to pay the fee.  Finally, HR 3209 authorizes expungement for anyone convicted prior to passage of the Youthful Offender Act of 2010 who could have been eligible for sentencing as a first offender under that provision.  The YOA provides that individuals between the ages of 17 and 25 who are convicted of certain non-violent misdemeanors and minor felonies may be sentenced to probation and treatment, so the extension of that law’s relief to pre-2010 convictions is quite significant.  

NC expands certificate law, taking three steps forward, one step back

The states are on a roll in passing new “second chance” legislation.  In addition to the extraordinary new Pennsylvania bill on automatic sealing we posted about earlier today, we’ve just learned that the North Carolina legislature has approved a bill modifying eligibility for judicial Certificates of Relief.  Certificates, which are available from the sentencing court one year after sentencing, remove mandatory collateral consequences (including in employment and licensing), certify that an individual poses no public safety risk, and provide negligent hiring protection.  The bill has been sent to the Governor for signature, we will inform you as soon as he has done so.   Hat’s off to our friends at the North Carolina Justice Center, who worked hard to get this bill passed!   

The bill will provide further relief and opportunity for people with multiple convictions.  The “one step back” referred to in the title of this post is that while the bill significantly expands eligibility for misdemeanors and the lowest level felonies, it also removes from eligibility one class of felony.   It is inevitable that there will occasionally be some last-minute counter-current in pressing for extension of relief provisions.   In North Carolina, what might have been cause for discouragement has evidently (and commendably) provided advocates with additional incentive to pursue a reform agenda and to educate employers about the value of certificates.   

Here is a description of the bill from Daniel Bowes at the NCJC:     Read more

More states enact major “second chance” reforms

In recent weeks, three more states — Colorado, Louisiana and Vermont — have enacted laws intended to make it easier for people with a criminal record to find and keep employment, or otherwise to regain rights and status.

We are just now noting Wyoming’s enactment in March 2018 of general standards for professional and occupational licensure, which impose new restrictions on how criminal record may be taken into account by licensing agencies, and its amendment of more than a dozen specific licensing laws.

In the first five months of 2018 alone, a total of 21 states have enacted legislation to improve opportunities for people with a criminal record, with more similar laws evidently on the way.  States have enacted several different types of “second chance” laws this year, from expansion of voting rights to expansion of judicial authority to relieve collateral consequences at sentencing.

Read more

“Challenging the Punitiveness of ‘New-Generation’ SORN Laws“

Wayne Logan has a terrific new article on the recent challenges to sex offender registration and notification laws, forthcoming in the New Criminal Law Review.  Here is the abstract:

Sex offender registration and notification (SORN) laws have been in effect nationwide since the 1990s, and publicly available registries today contain information on hundreds of thousands of individuals. To date, most courts, including the Supreme Court in 2003, have concluded that the laws are regulatory, not punitive, in nature, allowing them to be applied retroactively consistent with the Ex Post Facto Clause. Recently, however, several state supreme courts, as well as the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, addressing challenges lodged against new-generation SORN laws of a considerably more onerous and expansive character, have granted relief, concluding that the laws are punitive in effect. This symposium contribution examines these decisions, which are distinct not only for their results, but also for the courts’ decidedly more critical scrutiny of the justifications, purposes, and efficacy of SORN laws. The implications of the latter development in particular could well lay the groundwork for a broader challenge against the laws, including one sounding in substantive due process, which unlike ex post facto-based litigation would affect the viability of SORN vis-à-vis current and future potential registrants.

NJ high court bars retroactive application of Megan’s Law

The New Jersey Supreme Court on Wednesday held 2014 amendments to Megan’s Law enhancing certain penalties for sex offenders who violate parole requirements unenforceable against four defendants based on the ex post facto clauses of both the state and federal constitutions. The court, in a unanimous ruling, vacated the convictions and sentences of four paroled sex offenders who committed minor violations of their parole conditions and mounted a challenge to the laws. The ruling vacates the individuals’ third-degree convictions for the parole violations.
“A law that retroactively increases or makes more burdensome the punishment of a crime is an ex post facto law,” wrote Justice Barry Albin for the court. “The Amendment, therefore, is an ex post facto law that violates our Federal and State Constitutions as applied to defendants.”  The four sex offenders—Melvin Hester, Mark Warner, Linwood Roundtree and Anthony McKinney—after completing their sentences for the original crimes, were placed on community supervision for life, according to the decision. That means that they must register their addresses with local law enforcement, and inform law enforcement if they change their addresses.  Those registration requirements were enacted by the state Legislature in 1994 after a 7-year-old Hamilton Township girl, Megan Kanka, was sexually assaulted and murdered by a convicted sex offender, Jesse Timmendequas, who was living in her neighborhood. The requirements that paroled sex offenders register their whereabouts later became federal law.

Read more

President Trump supports opportunities for people with a criminal record

In an editorial published on May 21, the New York Times commended President Trump for remarks at a White House conference on prison reform last week, in which he expressed support for improved employment opportunities for people with a criminal record:

“A friend of mine told me that when people get out of prison, they’re all excited.” Mr. Trump said. “And then they go and they have that stigma; they can’t get a job. People don’t want to hire them. They can’t get that chance. When we talk about our national program to hire American, this must include helping millions of former inmates get back into the work force as gainfully employed citizens.”
It appears that most of the relevant discussion at the conference last week was about a House bill aimed at preparing federal prisoners for reentry, addressing such issues as good time credit and halfway house placement.  It also appears that the prospects for federal prison reform this year are dim, given the wide gulf between the pending House bill and the insistence of Senate leadership on including provisions for sentencing reform.  Nonetheless, the President’s words will be very useful for those working in state legislatures to restore rights and status.  Already in 2018, at least 13 states have enacted laws either reforming occupational licensure or extending record-clearing laws, and bills are awaiting the governor’s signature in another five.  We are already starting work on a report summarizing legislative accomplishments in 2018 that will be modeled on “Second Chance Reforms in 2017” published last fall.

Kansas most recent state to revise occupational licensing law

On May 10, Governor Brownback of Kansas signed into law the most recent entrant in the occupational licensing reform sweepstakes, making his state the seventh in the past six weeks to enact substantial progressive legislation.  The new law borrows a number of features from the Institute of Justice‘s model occupational licensing law, including prohibiting consideration of non-conviction records, and convictions not “directly related to protecting the general welfare,” and affording aspiring applicants an opportunity for a  preliminary assessment of their eligibility and an “informal, written advisory opinion.”  It adds a feature from the recently enacted Indiana licensing law that bars consideration of most convictions after five years.  The new law also addresses health care licensure and employment.  Here’s a description of the new law that we just posted in the Restoration of Rights Project.

Occupational and professional licensing

Kan. Stat. Ann. § 74-120, originally enacted in 1972, provides as follows:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person, board, commission or similar body who determines the qualifications of individuals for licensure, certification or registration may consider any felony conviction of the applicant, but such a conviction shall not operate as a bar to licensure, certification or registration.

In May 2018 this general licensing statute was amended to add several additional provisions. See HB 2386, available here: http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2017_18/measures/documents/hb2386_enrolled.pdf. The 2018 amendments require licensing boards to “list the specific civil and criminal records that could disqualify an applicant from receiving a license, certification or registration.” Kan. Stat. Ann. § 74-120(b)(1). Importantly, boards “may only list any disqualifying criminal records or civil court records that are directly related to protecting the general welfare and the duties and responsibilities for such entities.”  Moreover, ”in no case shall non-specific terms, such as moral turpitude or good character, or any arrests that do not result in a conviction be used to disqualify an individual’s application for licensure, certification, or registration.” Id.

Licensing boards are prohibited from considering an otherwise disqualifying criminal record or civil court record if five years have passed since the individual satisfied the sentence imposed and the individual has had no other convictions during that time. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 74-120(b)(2). However, boards may consider felony convictions, Class A misdemeanor convictions, and any conviction for which licensure could conflict with federal law, regardless of the time passed since the conviction. Id.

The amendments also provide individuals the opportunity to petition a licensing board at any time for a preliminary “informal, written advisory opinion concerning whether the individual’s civil or criminal records will disqualify the individual from obtaining such license, certification or registration.” Kan. Stat. Ann. § 74-120(b)(3). The board must respond to the petition within 120 days of receipt, and may not charge more than $50 for the response; however, the advisory opinion is not binding. Id.

Read more

New expungement legislation: Maryland and Oklahoma

The trend toward expanding expungement and sealing laws is continuing.  In the last week of April, the governors of Maryland and Oklahoma signed bills enlarging eligibility criteria and reducing waiting periods, joining Florida and Utah with new record-sealing enactments in 2018.  The provisions of these two newest laws are described below.  Similar legislation is well along in Illinois, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Vermont.  Vermont S 173, enrolled and awaiting the governor’s signature, is of particular interest since it makes expungement automatic in some categories without the requirement of a petition or filing fee (“unless either party objects in the interest of justice”).   We are tracking these pending bills and will add them to the Restoration of Rights Project if and when they are enacted.

Read more

1 … 15 16 17 18 19 … 36