Administration withdraws proposal to require federal job-seekers to disclose diversions

The Washington Post reports that the White House has directed the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to drop its proposal to expand the types of criminal records that must be disclosed by applicants seeking federal jobs and contracting work.  OPM’s proposal, which we described in March, would have required applicants for federal jobs and contracting work to disclose participation in pretrial diversion programs in the last 7 years.

In March, we launched our non-conviction records project, a major study of the public availability and use of non-conviction records – including arrests that are never charged, charges that are dismissed, deferred and diversionary dispositions, and acquittals.  The appearance of these records in background checks can lead to significant discrimination against people who have never been convicted of a crime, and result unfairly in barriers to employment, housing, education, and many other opportunities.  Our letter opposing the OPM proposal cited our research on diversions and pointed out that while “state lawmakers, judges, and prosecutors favor diversionary dispositions in appropriate cases to help people avoid the restrictions and stigma of a conviction, OPM’s proposal disfavors them by treating them like convictions.”

We are pleased to see the administration quash this ill-advised proposal, in the face of opposition from advocates on the left and right, lawmakers from both parties, and prosecutors and public defenders.  At a time of growing consensus in Congress and the states about the need to prioritize rehabilitation and reintegration for individuals with a criminal record, the federal government should be moving to reduce the collateral consequences of diversion (as Indiana and Wisconsin did in 2018 when they prohibited licensing boards from considering arrests not resulting in conviction, or California and Nevada did in 2017 when they prohibited employers from considering an applicant’s successful completion of diversion).

While every state legislature has in some way addressed the problem of reintegration since 2012, Congress has not enacted any laws dealing with the problems presented by collateral consequences for more than a decade.  Now is the time for federal action in support of reintegration, as the withdrawal of the OPM proposal evidently recognizes.

Should potentially severe collateral consequences trigger enhanced procedural protections?

In two recent law review articles, Professor Paul T. Crane of the University of Richmond School of Law proposes that courts and legislators—when deciding whether a criminal defendant is entitled to a particular procedural right—should take into account potential exposure to severe collateral consequences.  The two articles together mark a major contribution to the literature.  Much attention has focused on alleviating or eliminating collateral consequences after the criminal case is closed, via restoration of rights, clemency, expungement, and other forms of relief.  Also, lawmakers, courts, and prosecutors have increasingly turned to diversions and deferred adjudications to avoid a conviction record in the first instance.  However, far less attention has been paid to the procedural rights provided to criminal defendants facing potentially severe collateral consequences.  As Crane points out, collateral consequences are “generally deemed irrelevant for determining what procedural safeguards must be afforded.”

In Crane’s first article, he argues that courts and legislatures ought to take into account a defendant’s exposure to potentially severe collateral consequences in determining whether procedural safeguards, such as the right to counsel and to a jury trial, apply.  In his second article, he proposes a framework for determining when defendants may be entitled to enhanced procedural protections.

Read more

Iowa high court holds indigent attorney fees bar expungement

On May 10, the Iowa Supreme Court rejected an equal protection challenge to a requirement in Iowa law that applicants for expungement (sealing) of non-conviction records must first repay what they owe in court-appointed counsel fees.  This surprising decision strikes us as unfair on several levels, and out of step with what most other states provide where limiting public access to non-conviction records is concerned.  Rob Poggenklass of Iowa Legal Aid, which brought the case, describes the decision below.

Update: A petition for certiorari is expected to be filed in the U.S. Supreme Court later this summer.  CCRC has agreed to file an amicus brief, which we expect will be joined by other organizations on “both sides of the aisle.” 

 

Iowa Supreme Court finds collection of court-appointed attorney fees a rational precondition for expungement

By Rob Poggenklass

In State v. Doe, the state’s highest court held in a 4–3 decision that the legislature could condition eligibility for expungement on payment of fees owed to court-appointed counsel, just as it requires payment of other court debt.  In 2015, the General Assembly enacted chapter 901C, which entitles people to expungement of criminal cases that were dismissed or in which the person was acquitted at trial, assuming a few criteria are met.  One significant requirement for expungement is the repayment of all court debt associated with the case.  This includes fees charged to the court by the counsel it appoints for indigent defendants, which in Iowa are often assessed even in acquittals and dismissed cases.  See Iowa Code section 815.9(6).

Read more

NY judge rules police need court order to access sealed arrests

Last Tuesday, a New York court found that the New York Police Department’s routine use and disclosure of sealed arrest information violates the state’s sealing statute.  The case, R.C. v. City of New York, concerns plaintiffs whose information the NYPD used or disclosed after their arrests terminated favorably in dismissals or acquittals, after prosecutors declined to prosecute, or after cases resulted in non-criminal violations.  In New York City, over 400,000 arrests—nearly half of all arrests—were sealed between 2014 and 2016.  The lawsuit, brought by The Bronx Defenders, seeks to enforce the sealing statute’s protection of those records.

New York’s sealing statute—codified at Criminal Procedure Law §§ 160.50 and 160.55—requires that courts, prosecutors, and law enforcement agencies “seal” records when a case is terminated in a person’s favor or results in a non-criminal violation.  A “sealed” record “shall . . . not [be] made available to any person or public or private agency.”  The sealing requirement applies to “all official records and papers . . . relating to the arrest or prosecution . . . on file with the division of criminal justice services, any court, police agency, or prosecutor’s office.”  In addition, the statute requires that photographs and fingerprints be destroyed or returned to the formerly accused.

Despite the plain text of the statute, the NYPD has maintained, used, and disclosed information that should have been sealed, destroyed, or returned.  It has maintained this information in massive interconnected databases, some of which, like the “Domain Awareness System,” are deployed in every police precinct, on every officer smartphone, and in every police vehicle tablet.  It has used information in later police activity, allowing detectives to access and view sealed arrest information when investigating crimes.  And it has disclosed information both to prosecutors and the press—most prominently, about the victims of police shootings.

Read more

Abusing the pardon power is no joke

In the past we have commented in this space on constructive uses of the presidential pardon power, to reduce prison sentences and restore rights.  Today we reprint an op ed from Slate.com describing a recent episode allegedly involving its abuse, by Yale Law School Professor Eugene Fidell and CCRC Executive Director Margaret Love.  In addition, several bills have recently been introduced in Congress that would enact a statutory substitute for pardon where restoration of rights is concerned.  We will be following these bills closely, and commenting on them here from time to time.

Trump’s DHS Pardon Promise Is As Serious As Anything in the Mueller Report

By EUGENE R. FIDELL and MARGARET COLGATE LOVE

APRIL 24, 2019 6:00 PM

The week since the release of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report has felt like a whirlwind, with Congress considering how next to approach the unresolved questions raised about the conduct of Donald Trump and his administration, and the nation bracing for a potentially historic subpoena fight. At the same time, news around the Mueller report has overtaken news of another possible abuse of power by this president—allegations that Trump promised to pardon an official if he broke the law at the president’s request. While the episode has been written off by some as a joke, it is no such thing: Congress has an obligation to investigate these allegations as much as anything in the Mueller report.

Read more

Marijuana reformers schedule National Expungement Week

Adam Vine of Cage-Free Cannabis & Cage-Free Repair has asked us to let visitors to our site know about a series of events this fall promoting expungement and other forms of relief from collateral consequences.  They are available to assist in plannig local events during National Expungement Week, including but not limited to events aimed at marijuana convictions:

The 2nd Annual National Expungement Week (N.E.W.) will be held from September 21-28, 2019. Advocates and organizers, primarily from the cannabis equity and justice movement, will once again host events across the U.S. that provide free legal services to people with eligible convictions. Last year, N.E.W. featured 18 events in 15 cities across the U.S., and the event helped 298 people begin the process clearing their records, while 450 people received services of some kind. One of the defining features of N.E.W. is the attempt to provide as many wraparound services as possible, which can include voter registration, employment advice, housing assistance, and other services that help people re-engage with their communities. N.E.W. is not focused exclusively on cannabis convictions in states that have legalized; some of our most successful events were held in states that criminalize marijuana possession. N.E.W. events welcome people with any convictions in any state that are eligible to be cleared, sealed, pardoned, or reclassified.  We simply want to provide legal relief to as many people as possible, while reminding the cannabis industry and policymakers alike that cannabis legalization must be accompanied by justice for those who have been harmed by the War on Drugs.

National Expungement Week is co-sponsored by the Equity First Alliance and Cage-Free Repair, and a toolkit for organizing events is available at the N.E.W. website.  

 

CCRC opposes rule requiring federal job seekers to disclose some non-conviction records

In March, we described a proposed federal rule that would expand the types of criminal records that must be disclosed by applicants seeking federal jobs and contracting work.  Specifically, OPM proposes for the first time to require individuals applying for federal employment or contracts to disclose whether they have participated in pretrial diversion programs in the last 7 years.  Our letter commenting on OPM’s proposal (reprinted below) points out that diversion is increasingly favored by states as a means of encouraging rehabilitation, and that this goal is advanced by the promise of avoiding the disabling collateral consequences and stigma that follow conviction.  In treating diversions like convictions, the OPM proposal would subvert the many benefits of diversion that have encouraged their increased use by prosecutors in recent years, including allowing for positive community perceptions of the justice system.

**Update (5/29/19): The federal government has withdrawn this proposal, as reported by the Washington Post. 

Read more

Searchable on-line inventories of collateral consequences: How they operate and how they are maintained

There are currently only three on-line collections of collateral consequences, one national and two state-specific (Ohio and North Carolina).  All three can be searched and sorted, and all three are regularly updated, making them indispensable practice tools for lawyers and essential guides for advocates and people with a criminal record.  Each of these inventories is described below by the individuals who helped create them and now administer them.  They explain how the inventories were created and how they are maintained, and how they operate to inform and assist people interested in understanding the legal and regulatory restrictions that affect people with a criminal record, as well as the lawyers and other advocates who assist them.

Note that the three inventories each deal differently with the problem of linking specific consequences with the crimes that trigger them.  Ohio’s CIVICC inventory has the greatest granularity, allowing searches by specific provision of the state criminal code.  North Carolina’s C-CAT inventory is somewhat less specific, linking specific collateral consequences with the “crime characteristics” that make the consequence applicable, including the type and degree of crime.  The national inventory (NICCC) is less specific still, stating triggering offenses for each consequence in terms of broad categories of crimes (e.g., “any felony” or “crimes of moral turpitude”).  This approach not only reflects the way most state laws imposing collateral consequences are drafted (Ohio consequences are a conspicuous exception), but it also has the advantage of allowing cross-jurisdictional comparisons and analysis.

The descriptions that follow confirm that a great deal of time and money, not to mention the commitment of dedicated and skilled professionals, goes into keeping the inventories current, given the passage of new laws every year.  Thankfully, much legislating nowadays is in the direction of helping people avoid or mitigate these consequences, through judicial certificates and record-sealing mechanisms, rather than imposing further burdens and restrictions.  (See the CCRC report on 2018 laws, and its recent interim survey of laws enacted already in 2019.)

Read more

“Third-Class Citizenship” for people with a “violent” record

Professor Michael M. O’Hear of Marquette University Law School has an important new article titled “Third-Class Citizenship: The Escalating Legal Consequences of Committing a ‘Violent’ Crime.”  This marks the first effort to systematically study the full legal consequences of a “violent” criminal charge or conviction, including the collateral consequences that uniquely apply to violent crimes.  O’Hear documents the growing network of these consequences, noting that recent criminal justice reforms tend to exclude people with “violent” as well as “sexual” offenses from relief available to other individuals with criminal records.

O’Hear canvasses the wide range and reach of legal definitions of what actually qualifies as a “violent” crime, concluding that many of these definitions “sweep in large numbers of offenses that lie outside core understandings of what constitutes violence.”  After this, the article provides a 50-state overview of the statutory consequences of a violent charge or conviction, and raises concerns about whether these consequences are proportional, provide fair notice, and promote public safety.

The abstract of the article, to be published in a forthcoming issue of Northwestern University Law School’s Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, follows:

Read more

Symposium on felony disenfranchisement set for Friday in Missouri

On Friday, April 12, a day-long symposium on felony disenfranchisement will be held at the University of Missouri in Columbia, MO.  The event, hosted by the Missouri Law Review and Kinder Institute on Constitutional Democracy, is open to the public.

Three panels of scholars will address: (1) the historical origins of conviction-based disenfranchisement and its consequences for democracy—featuring CCRC board member Gabriel “Jack” Chin, among other panelists; (2) felony disenfranchisement, voting rights, and elections; and (3) the democratic challenges of voting rights restoration.  Pamela S. Karlan will deliver the keynote.

For further reference, see our 50-state comparison chart documenting the loss and restoration of voting rights across the country; Gabriel “Jack” Chin’s recent book review: “New book argues collateral consequences can’t be justified”; and our comment on Professor Beth Colgan’s article on how inability to pay economic sanctions associated with a criminal conviction results in continuing disenfranchisement nationwide.

1 … 18 19 20 21 22 … 58