Author Archives: CCRC Staff

Bail or (collateral) consequences

April Camara of the National Legal Aid and Defender Association (NLADA) writes as a guest blogger about how the availability of bail may determine whether an individual is adversely affected by collateral consequences:

The Prison Policy Initiative recently reported that the explosive growth in jail populations since the 1980s is predominantly the result of jailing people who are accused of crimes and awaiting trial.[1] This is especially true for the past 15 years, in which time 99% of jail growth has been comprised of people who are detained pretrial and legally presumed innocent.[2] To curb this growth, the MacArthur Foundation has invested more than $100 million dollars into reducing jail incarceration and racial disparities in America through the Safety and Justice Challenge (“SJC”).  NLADA serves as a strategic ally in the SJC, and we are making the case to show investing in public defense yields system-wide benefits to pre-trial reform.  We understand that a person’s likelihood to be released on bail while pending trial is significantly increased when they are represented by counsel, and defense advocacy minimizes the harm that incarceration does to a person’s life.  Research shows that people who are in jail before trial have worse outcomes in their criminal cases and in their lives.[3] As a result of pretrial detention, they are:

  • More likely to fail to appear for court.
  • More likely to lose connections to employment, housing, and family.
  • More likely to be convicted.
  • More likely to have a longer prison sentence.
  • More likely to be rearrested for new crimes. [4]

These long-term collateral consequences destabilize not just the accused and their families, but their wider communities. Criminal justice stakeholders involved in the Challenge understand these implications, and defenders are collaborating with local stakeholders to reduce the overall number of people who are presumed innocent and are in jail while awaiting trial.

 

________________

[1] Joshua Aiken, Era of Mass Expansion: Why State Officials Should Fight Jail Growth, Prison Policy Initiative,(2017).

[2] Peter Wagner, Jails matter. But who is listening?, Prison Policy Initiative (Aug. 14, 2015). .

[3]See Incarceration’s Front Door: The Misuse of Jails in America, Vera Institute (2015).

[4] Aiken, supra note 1; Laura & John Arnold Found., Pretrial Criminal Justice Research (2013); Megan Stevenson, Distortion of Justice: How the Inability to Pay Bail Affects Case Outcomes (2017).

 

More states facilitating licensing for people with a criminal record

Last week we posted a description of a detailed new Indiana law regulating consideration of conviction in occupational and professional licensure throughout the state.  It now appears that this may represent a trend, as eight additional states have either recently enacted or are poised to enact similarly progressive occupational licensing schemes.  New general laws regulating licensure are in place in Arizona, Illinois, and Massachusetts.  Similar bills have been enrolled and are on the governor’s desk for signature in Kansas, Maryland, Nebraska, and Tennessee.  Arizona’s new 2018 licensing law follows on another law passed in that state in 2017 that authorized provisional licenses for individuals with a criminal record.  Massachusett’s new licensing law is part of a more general criminal justice reform bill.   Delaware and Connecticut have also recently loosened restrictions on licensing for cosmetology and related professions.

The licensing reforms in these states – and in several other states where licensing bills are less far along toward enactment — seem to have been influenced by a model law proposed by the Institute for Justice, a libertarian public interest law firm.  Key features of the Model Occupational Licensing Review Act as they affect individuals with criminal records are 1) to provide individuals with an opportunity to seek a preliminary determination from the licensing agency as to whether their criminal record will be disqualifying; 2) to require licensing agencies to disqualify only if an applicant has been convicted of a felony or violent misdemeanor, and if the agency determines that “the state has an important interest in protecting public safety that is superior to the individual’s right to pursue a lawful occupation”; and 3) to require each agency to publish a report annually on the number of applicants with a criminal record seeking a license, the number of approvals and denials, and the type of offenses for each type of action.  Disqualification is justified under this model law only if the conviction is “substantially related to the state’s interest in protecting public safety,” and the individual will be “more likely to reoffend by having the license than by not having the license.”

The federal government is also encouraging licensing reform: the U.S. Department of Labor is supporting a three-year project to assist states improve their general policies and practices related to occupational licensing, including those that affect persons with a criminal record. The project brings together 11 states to participate in the Occupational Licensing Learning Consortium. The 11 states are Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Nevada, Utah and Wisconsin.

We are monitoring this legislative trend and will revise the state profiles and other materials in the Restoration of Rights Project as new laws are enacted.

 

Indiana enacts progressive new licensing law

The race is on in 2018 to see which State can enact the most progressive new laws on restoration of rights.  As in the past, Indiana is at the forefront of reform.  On March 21, Governor Eric Holcomb signed into law HB 1245, which appears to be the most progressive and comprehensive scheme for regulation of occupational and professional licensure in the country.  It applies not only to state licensing agencies, but also to units of county and municipal government that issue licenses, and requires that state agencies work with them to eliminate redundant and overlapping rules.  Agencies must report to the legislature respecting their implementation of the new law by November 1, 2018.

Read more

First crop of restoration laws enacted in 2018

In 2017, state legislatures produced a bumper crop of laws restoring rights and opportunities, with 24 separate states enacting new legal mechanisms to facilitate reentry and reintegration.  Based on pending bills and laws already enacted this year, 2018 promises to be similarly productive.  In March, the governors of Florida, Utah and Washington all signed into law new measures expanding their existing restoration schemes.  Washington enacted a ban-the-box law applicable to both public and private employment, and both Florida and Utah expanded their laws authorizing expungement of non-conviction records.  These new authorities are described in the post that follows, and can be seen in the context of related laws in the state profiles in the Restoration of Rights Project.

While none of these first enactments of 2018 is particularly remarkable standing alone, they deserve mention as harbingers of things to come.  More than thirty additional states have restoration bills pending, and half a dozen of these are well along in the enactment process.  We will be tracking restoration bills through the year, and will report periodically in this space – particularly when a significant new law is enacted.  We also hope to produce in 2018 another annual report on Second Chance Laws enacted during the year, as resources permit.

Read more

“The Scale of Misdemeanor Justice”

There is a growing awareness that the consequences of a misdemeanor arrest or conviction have become exponentially more serious in recent years.  We also know that the misdemeanor system is enormous, and that its very size makes it particularly susceptible of abuse.  Yet we have very little reliable information about how many people in the United States have a misdemeanor record.  A new research report by Professors Megan Stevenson and Sandra Mayson begins to fill this gap, in the process challenging the conventional wisdom that the misdemeanor system is expanding.
Based on “the most comprehensive national-level analysis of misdemeanor criminal justice that is currently feasible,” the report reaches the surprising conclusion that both the number of misdemeanor arrests and cases filed each year have “declined markedly” in recent years.  At the same time, unsurprisingly, it concludes that there is “profound racial disparity” in misdemeanor arrest rates for most offense types, and that this disparity has “remained remarkably constant” over almost four decades.   While the report confirms current perceptions about the scale of misdemeanor justice and its disparate racial impact, its fascinating findings of “declining arrest and case-filing rates present a challenge for misdemeanor scholarship.”

Read more

Erasing the line between felony and misdemeanor

Two provocative new scholarly articles examine the extent to which the crisp line historically drawn in law between felonies and misdemeanors is becoming increasingly ephemeral.  In Informed Misdemeanor Sentencing, Jenny Roberts points out that conviction of a misdemeanor has become exponentially more serious in recent years as the associated collateral consequences have increased in number and severity.  She urges judges to “explicitly acknowledge the many serious collateral consequences an individual suffers after any penal sanction, and incorporate those into the sentencing process to ensure that punishment is proportionate.”  She recommends that sentencing courts should make “more use of deferred adjudication as well as expungement and related mechanisms for mitigating the unintended effects of a misdemeanor conviction.”

Jack Chin and John Ormonde make essentially the same point about the blurring of the old distinction between felony and misdemeanor in a forthcoming article in the Minnesota Law Review.  In Infamous Misdemeanors and the Grand Jury Clause, they point out that “[i]n the late 19th and early 20th century, the Supreme Court held in a series of cases, never overruled, that to charge an infamous misdemeanor required a grand jury indictment.”  They conclude that, because of the stigma that attaches to any criminal record, the Fifth Amendment requires that “many more federal offenses should be prosecuted by grand jury indictment than is now the practice.”

It is impossible to determine exactly how many of the 48,000 consequences collected in the National Inventory of the Collateral Consequences of Conviction are triggered by a misdemeanor conviction, but so many legal and regulatory consequences attach to specific categories of offenses that include misdemeanors (e.g., drug crimes, sexual offenses, crimes involving dishonesty), it is likely a substantial portion.  Moreover, given the ubiquity of criminal background checking pervading every area of modern life, even a criminal record involving dismissed misdemeanor charges may result in discrimination and exclusion.

Below are the abstracts for these two articles:

Read more

“The Juvenile Record Myth”

A new article in the Georgetown Law Journal exposes the fallacy that delinquency adjudications don’t follow juveniles into adulthood, and documents the alarming extent to which records of juvenile delinquency adjudications have become almost as accessible to the public as records of adult convictions.  In The Juvenile Record Myth, University of Tennessee Law Professor Joy Radice argues that state confidentiality and sealing provisions often provide far less protection than is commonly believed, and that juveniles frequently face continuing legal restrictions and stigma.   Almost all states permit some degree of public access, and some even publish juvenile records online.  Using recent literature on juvenile brain development and the recidivism research of criminologists, Radice presents new arguments for why delinquency records should not follow a juvenile into adulthood—and why the state’s obligation to help rehabilitate juveniles (an obligation typically recognized in a state’s juvenile code) should extend to restricting access to juvenile records.  The abstract of Professor Radice’s article is reprinted at the end of this post.

The state-by-state profiles from the Restoration of Rights Project analyze each state’s laws on access to records of juvenile adjudications.  These laws are summarized in the RRP’s 50-state-chart on expungement and sealing.

Read more

Michigan set-asides found to increase wages and reduce recidivism

Preliminary results of an empirical study by two University of Michigan law professors show that setting aside an individual’s record of conviction is associated with “a significant increase in employment and average wages,” and with a low recidivism rate.  We know of only one other similar study, conducted by researchers at the University of California at Berkeley, and it came to essentially the same conclusion.  One relevant difference between the two studies is that in Michigan set-aside results in sealing of the record, while in California it does not.  Such studies are rare because of the difficulty of obtaining data, particularly where relief seals the record, but they are a very important way of advancing a reform agenda.  Thus, Professors Sonja Starr and J.J. Prescott propose that their research “provides important empirical guidance to the broader social policy debates associated with set-aside laws and accessibility of criminal records.”  In the hope that their work will encourage others to undertake similar research, we reprint the entire report below.

Read more

May background screeners lawfully report expunged records?

The following post, by Sharon Dietrich of Community Legal Services of Philadelphia, addresses the question whether reporting of an expunged or sealed case by a commercial background screener violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act.  Sharon is a national authority on FCRA as applied to criminal records, and we are pleased to reprint her analysis below. 

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) governs the accuracy of criminal background checks prepared by commercial screeners.  While there is little case law holding that the FCRA prohibits commercial screeners from reporting expunged or sealed cases, there is little doubt that this is the case.

Two FCRA provisions are applicable to this issue.

  • Commercial screeners must use “reasonable procedures” to insure “maximum possible accuracy” of the information in the report.  15 U.S.C. §1681e(b).
  • A commercial screener reporting public record information for employment purposes which “is likely to have an adverse effect on the consumer’s ability to obtain employment” must either notify the person that the public record information is being reported and provide the name and address of the person who is requesting the information at the time that the information is provider to the user or the commercial screener must maintain strict procedures to insure that the information it reports is complete and up to date.  15 U.S.C. §1681k.

Numerous FCRA class actions have been brought under one or both of these provisions to challenge a commercial screener’s reporting of expunged or sealed cases.

  • Henderson v. HireRight Solutions, Inc., No. 10-459 (E.D. Pa. 2010).
  • Robinson v. General Information Services, Inc., No. 11-7782 (E.D. Pa. 2011).
  • Roe v. Intellicorp Records, Inc., No. 1:12-cv-2288 (N.D. Ohio 2012).
  • Giddiens v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-02624-LDD (E.D. Pa. 2012).
  • Stokes v. RealPage, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-01520-JP (E.D. Pa. 2015).

All of these cases were settled, with the settlement typically requiring the discontinuation of the use of stale data or the screener to change its practice to verify data.

Read more

Florida’s vote restoration process held unconstitutional

In a strongly-worded opinion, a federal judge has ruled that Florida’s method of restoring voting rights to individuals convicted of felonies violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments.  In Hand v. Scott, a suit brought by seven individuals either denied restoration of rights by the State Clemency Board or ineligible to apply, U.S. District Judge Mark E. Walker held that Florida’s “arbitrary” and “crushingly restrictive” restoration scheme, in which “elected, partisan officials have extraordinary authority to grant or withhold the right to vote from hundreds of thousands of people without any constraints, guidelines, or standards,” violates rights of free speech and association, and risks viewpoint and other discrimination.

As reported in this local press article, Governor Scott’s office issued a statement late Thursday, hinting at an appeal.  Scott was the principal architect of the current system that requires all applicants for clemency to wait at least five years after they complete their sentences, serve probation and pay all restitution, before they may be considered for restoration of the vote and other civil rights.  Throughout his 43-page ruling, Judge Walker cited the arbitrariness of Florida’s system, noting that people have been denied their voting rights because they received speeding tickets or failed to pay child support.

Scott and the Cabinet, meeting as a clemency board, consider cases four times a year, and usually fewer than 100 cases each time. It can take a decade or longer for a case to be heard, and at present the state has a backlog of more than 10,000 cases. Scott imposed the restrictions in 2011, soon after he was elected, with the support of three fellow Republicans who serve on the Cabinet, including Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam, now a leading candidate for governor. Scott’s actions in 2011 reversed a policy under which many felons, not including murderers and sex offenders, had their rights restored without application process and hearings. That streamlined process was instituted in 2007 by former Gov. Charlie Crist, then a Republican and now a Democratic member of Congress.

The context in which the case was decided is described in this NPR article.  Last month, Florida elections officials approved a November ballot measure that would automatically restore voting rights to people convicted of felonies who have completed their sentences, with exceptions for murder and serious sex offenses.

1 … 16 17 18 19 20 … 36