Author Archives: Margaret Love

Margaret Love

Margaret Love is CCRC's Executive Director. A former U.S. Pardon Attorney, she represents applicants for executive clemency in her private practice in Washington, D.C.. She is lead co-author of Collateral Consequences of Criminal Conviction: Law, Policy, and Practice (4th ed. 2021), and served as an advisor to the ALI Model Penal Code: Sentencing.

Visit Author's Website
View All Posts

Survey of law enforcement access to sealed non-conviction records

As part of our non-conviction records project, we have researched what state laws provide on law enforcement agency access to and use of sealed or expunged non-conviction records for routine law enforcement purposes.  This issue is particularly salient in light of an ongoing lawsuit against the New York Police Department in which a New York state court found that the NYPD’s routine use and disclosure of sealed arrest information—without securing a court order—violates New York’s sealing statute.

Looking across the country, we found an almost even split on this issue: exactly half the states either do not allow law enforcement access to sealed records for routine law enforcement activity, or condition law enforcement access on a court order (as in New York) or formal written request.  Specifically, we identified 25 states and two territories that appear to limit law enforcement agency access to and/or use of non-conviction records, either absolutely (12 states and two territories), or without a court order (11 states) or formal written request to the state custodian of records for a specified purpose (two states).  The other 25 states, plus two territories, the District of Columbia and the Federal system, exempt law enforcement agencies generally from sealing or expungement laws, or in a few cases have no law authorizing sealing of non-conviction records (American Samoa, the Federal system, and Wisconsin).

Note a couple of things about the way we conducted this research.  First, our results apply only to records that do not result in a conviction (though in many states the answer is the same for records that do), and we classified them according to their apparent application to law enforcement operations (some states allow law enforcement agency access for employment and certification purposes).  There are a handful of states that bar law enforcement agency access but allow access by prosecutors, both generally (NC) and in specific situations (AR, KS), and we classified these as barring law enforcement access, because the possibility of police access to records through prosecutors is not the kind of unregulated direct access at issue in the New York litigation.

The second thing to note is that our results say nothing about how easy or hard it is to get a non-conviction record sealed or expunged, or who is eligible for this relief.  For example, of the states whose laws bar access, New York offers sealing of non-conviction records right at disposition as a routine matter, with the burden on the prosecutor to show why sealing isn’t appropriate (and it is a high bar).  Other states in the “no access” or “court order” categories (e.g. Virginia, Kentucky, West Virginia) require a defendant to file a separate civil petition after an eligibility waiting period, disqualify based on prior record, require a hearing at which the petitioner has the burden of showing why relief should be granted, and even impose civil filing fees.

Our classification tells a bit more about the scope or effect of sealing/expungement relief in each state more generally, since states that “delete” or “erase” non-conviction records are more likely to specifically bar law enforcement agency access than states that merely limit public access to the record.  But even states that provide some public access (e.g., by licensing boards) may also bar access for law enforcement functions (e.g., KS).  (Further information about the effect of sealing or expungement relief in each state may be found in the Restoration of Rights Project profiles.)

Our state-by-state research follows.

Read more

CCRC seeking lawyer to work on Restoration of Rights Project

The CCRC is seeking a lawyer to join its staff to work primarily on the Restoration of Rights Project (RRP).  The primary duties of the RRP Legal Analyst, as described in the position description below, involve collecting and analyzing the law and practice in each U.S. jurisdiction relating to restoration of rights; and, updating the on-line resources that comprise the RRP.  An important part of the job is identifying and tracking bills relating to restoration of rights as they become law, which has become an increasingly important and challenging task in the past several years.  In conducting legal research, preparing reports, and responding to inquiries, the RRP Legal Analyst will have a unique opportunity to engage with CCRC staff and lawyers across the country who are working in this emerging area of scholarship and practice.

The RRP Legal Analyst position is part-time, though applicants should be prepared to commit to at least 15-20 hours per week for at least six months.  The position may be particularly attractive to individuals seeking a flexible work schedule and workplace.  The position will be compensated on an hourly basis, starting at a base rate of $26.50 per hour, a rate that may be negotiable depending on experience.

Applicants should have familiarity with criminal law and procedure, and preferably with the legislative process, and they should have proven research and writing skills.  Please see the position description for further details.  A letter of interest, resume and writing sample, as well as the names of references, should be sent to Margaret Love, CCRC executive director, at margaretlove@pardonlaw.com.

Read more

David Schlussel joins CCRC as its first Fellow

I am delighted to announce that David Schlussel will join CCRC as its first Fellow at the end of this month.  Most recently, David served as a law clerk for the Honorable David O. Carter on the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. While attending law school at Berkeley, David represented clients in juvenile delinquency, school discipline, and clean slate proceedings as a clinical student for the East Bay Community Law Center. He also interned at public defender offices, taught outreach courses in Juvenile Hall, and wrote a law review note on marijuana, race, and collateral consequences. David has been interested in inequities in the criminal justice system since college, when he volunteered as a GED tutor at the New Haven jail.

During his fellowship year, David will be maintaining CCRC resources, including the Restoration of Rights Project; reporting on new laws and developments in the courts; and drafting analytical pieces on significant scholarship and research relating to collateral consequences.  One of his first assignments will be preparing a round-up of the “second chance” legislation enacted during 2018 – to date, more than 50 separate laws in thirty-two states.  During his tenure, David hopes to participate in drafting an amicus brief, an opportunity that could come very soon with a major new challenge to Pennsylvania’s sex offender registration scheme pending in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
David’s piece on California’s new occupational licensing law that will post later today on the site is the first of what I expect will be many of his thought-provoking analyses of significant new “second chance” legislation.

Marijuana decriminalization drives expungement reform

The national trend toward expanding opportunities for restoration of rights after conviction has continued to accelerate throughout 2018.  By our count, so far this year alone 31 states have broadened existing second chance laws or enacted entirely new ones, enhancing the prospects for successful reentry and reintegration for many thousands of Americans.  On November 6, Florida could take the most politically momentous step of the year if its voters approve a ballot initiative amending the state constitution to re-enfranchise more than a million and a half individuals who are now permanently barred from voting because of a past felony conviction.  We expect to publish a full report on these 2018 reforms, similar to the report we published last winter on 2017 laws, by the end of the year.  Expect it to feature the broad occupational licensing reforms enacted in more than a dozen states since last spring.

Another important series of second chance reforms this year has accompanied marijuana decriminalization.  These reforms are documented and analyzed by Professor Douglas Berman in an important new paper titled “Leveraging Marijuana Reform to Enhance Expungement Practices.”  Published in a symposium issue of the Federal Sentencing Reporter devoted to various aspects of collateral consequences and criminal records management, Professor Berman’s paper showcases issues that will becomes increasingly important as the War on Drugs winds down.  Professor Berman is the executive director of Ohio State University’s Drug Enforcement and Policy Center, whose official launch is November 2.  We expect that the Center under his management will give restoration of rights an important place on its policy agenda.

The abstract of Professor Berman’s article follows:  Read more

NH limits denial of licenses based on criminal record

On July 2, 2018, New Hampshire’s Governor Sununu signed into law SB 589, making his state the 10th so far in 2018 to approve comprehensive limits on consideration of criminal record in occupational and professional licensing.  Like enactments earlier this year in Indiana, Kansas, Tennessee, and Wisconsin, New Hampshire’s new law is intended to ensure that people with the requisite professional qualifications will not be unfairly denied a license based on their record of arrest or conviction.  In this respect, it reflects the provisions of the Institute for Justice’s model occupational licensing act.

New Hampshire’s new law, which goes into effect on August 31, authorizes individuals to seek a preliminary determination as to whether their criminal record will be disqualifying, and allows disqualification only based on a demonstrated public safety concern arising from the facts and circumstances of an individual’s situation.  It requires a board to give reasons for denial in writing, to explain what remedial measures an individual may take to address the board’s concerns, and limits the amount of the fee the board may charge to render its determination.  Finally, it requires each board to report annually on the number of licenses granted and denied to people with a criminal record.  The provisions of the new law are explained in further detail below.

Read more

Justice Kennedy’s contributions to sentencing and corrections reform

The following post on Justice Kennedy’s contributions to sentencing and corrections reform appeared earlier this week on Douglas Berman’s Sentencing Law and Policy blog.  While it does not involve collateral consequences directly, it seems fitting that CCRC recognize the significant contributions the Justice made to criminal law, notably in his statements off the bench about the injustice and inhumanity of excessive punishment.  One of the most vivid memories I have of the 2008 ABA Roundtable conference whose proceedings were published in the FSR symposium issue discussed below, is of Justice Kennedy’s enthusiastic description of the federal reentry court that had recently been established in Oregon, one of the first of its kind.  He made sure we all appreciated, as we discussed sentencing issues, that the consequences of a criminal case have adverse effects on individuals long after they have served their court-imposed sentence.  In the decade since that conference, the idea that collateral consequences are an integral part of punishment that must at some point end, is one that that has taken root in new laws and practices in almost every state.

Read more

Collateral Consequences in Occupational Licensing Act

We’ve noted in recent posts the numerous states that, just in the past three or four months, have enacted broad occupational licensing reforms affecting people with a criminal record.  Many of these new laws have been influenced by a model developed by the Institute for Justice (IJ), a libertarian public interest law firm that has been litigating and lobbying to reduce barriers to work for more than two decades.  In turn, states like Indiana, Kansas, Tennessee and Wisconsin have built upon IJ’s model to enact even more progressive schemes intended to ensure that people with the requisite professional qualifications will not be unfairly excluded based on a record of arrest or conviction.

Now IJ has incorporated many of these progressive refinements into its original model licensing law, the Occupational Licensing Review Act (OLRA), and broken out the provisions relating to criminal records into a free-standing model act specifically directed at managing collateral consequences in the occupational licensing context, the new Collateral Consequences in Occupational Licensing Act (CCOLA).

Read more

Automated sealing nears enactment in Pennsylvania

[NOTE:  On June 30, HR 1419 was signed into law as Act 56.  Its provisions have been incorporated into the Pennsylvania profile of the Restoration of Rights Project.]

On Friday June 22, the Pennsylvania legislature took its final step toward passage of the so-called Clean Slate Act of 2018, delivering to Governor Wolf a bill (HR 1419) that he has already indicated he will sign.  When enacted, the Act will be the first state law providing for automated sealing of at least some conviction records, sparing individuals with qualifying records the trouble and expense of filing a formal petition for relief with a court.  Congratulations are due to the Community Legal Services of Philadelphia and the Center for American Progress for their sustained efforts over several years to enact this ground-breaking legislation, which will provide relief for “hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians with old and minor criminal convictions or who were arrested but not convicted.”  Their press release, linked here, notes that “[t]he bill enjoyed remarkably broad support, including from legislators and advocacy groups that rarely find common ground.”  

As soon as HR 1419 has been signed into law, we expect to incorporate into the Restoration of Rights Project a full analysis of its relevant provisions, which are fairly complex, and which become effective on different dates.  In the meantime, we note below what appear to be the bill’s most salient features.

Read more

Expungement in Indiana – A radical experiment and how it is working so far

Note: This is the first of what we anticipate will be a series of reports on some of the more progressive restoration schemes enacted in the past several years.  

Marion County Deputy Prosecutor Andrew Fogle says the four years since Indiana enacted a broad “second chance” law have been like “the Wild West.”  Fogle, who oversees petitions for expungement for his office in Indiana’s most populous county, agreed to be interviewed about what may be the Nation’s most comprehensive and creative scheme to overcome the adverse effects of a criminal record.  We also spoke about the law to a number of criminal defense attorneys and legal service providers in the State.  

Indiana’s expungement law, first enacted in 2013 and amended several times since, extends to all but the most serious offenses, although the effect of relief as well as the process for obtaining it differs considerably depending on the offense involved.  Perhaps most important, the term “expungement” doesn’t have the same meaning in Indiana as it has in most states, because it doesn’t necessarily result in limiting access to the record.1

Read more

California follows federal lead in limiting employment screening

A new California regulation took effect last week that puts employers on notice that adverse action based on criminal history may violate state law prohibitions on racial discrimination.  The regulation closely tracks a 2012 guidance issued by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which asserts that consideration of criminal history by employers violates Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act when it adversely impacts racial minorities and is not job-related or consistent with business necessity.

The California regulation adopts, in broad terms, the same position and standards put forth in the EEOC guidance, but applies them to the state’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), which prohibits employment discrimination on grounds that are substantially similar to those enumerated in Title VII.  Like the EEOC guidance, the new FEHA regulation sets forth a number of factors used to determine whether a particular practice is job-related and consistent with business necessity, including whether it takes into account “the nature and gravity of the offense,” “the time that has passed since the offense,” and “the nature of the job held or sought.”

The fact that the regulation was promulgated by the state’s Department of Fair Housing and Employment, which may sue to enforce the FEHA, may give California employers that have not already conformed their practices to the EEOC guidance an incentive to do so. Moreover, the new regulation ought to make it easier for individuals to challenge criminal history screening practices by giving them a clear basis for action under California law.

Read more

1 2 3 4 5 … 11