Administration wants federal job seekers to disclose participation in diversion

A proposed federal rule, now open for public comment, would expand the types of criminal records that must be disclosed by applicants seeking federal jobs and contracting work.  On February 22, 2019, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) proposed a new rule to modify its “Declaration for Federal Employment” form (OF–306)—used by federal agencies in applications for federal employment or contracting—to require applicants to disclose not only whether they have been convicted, imprisoned, on probation, or on parole in the last 7 years, as under the current rule, but also whether they have participated in any pretrial diversion or intervention programs during that look-back period.  Such pretrial diversion and intervention programs “allow individuals to agree to comply with specific conditions in lieu of criminal prosecution and upon compliance, to have the charge(s) dismissed.”  No conviction is entered—and in some cases, neither is a plea.

**Update (5/29/19): The federal government has withdrawn this proposal, as reported by the Washington Post.

Reform advocates and a growing number of state and federal prosecutors rightfully promote diversionary dispositions as key tools to reduce the collateral consequences of criminal justice system involvement.  But OPM’s proposed rule treats participation in a diversion program—even where there is no admission of guilt—as a marker of criminality.  By requiring candidates to disclose participation in diversion programs, OPM’s new proposed rule subverts the benefits of diversion: “prevent[ing] collateral consequences associated with [an] incident and allow[ing] for positive community perceptions of the justice system.”  See, e.g., Erica McWhorter & David LaBahn, Confronting the Elephants in the Courtroom Through Prosecutor Led Diversion Efforts, 79 Alb. L. Rev. 1221, 1239 (2016).

The new disclosure requirement is described further below.  Public comments on the proposed rule may be submitted by April 23, 2019.

Read more

PA prepares to implement clean slate

Community Legal Services of Philadelphia (CLS), with the leadership of Sharon M. Dietrich, has issued a report on the progress made towards implementing Pennsylvania’s Clean Slate Act.  (See our post describing this ground-breaking law when it was enacted last June.)  Notably, the state is “on target” to start automated sealing of criminal records by the onset date of June 28, 2019.  As the report explains, “[a]utomated sealing will permit Pennsylvania to close the large ‘second chance gap’ between those eligible for expungement or sealing and those who actually benefit, by allowing cases to be sealed in a volume not possible in the absence of technology.”  The most ambitious aspect of the new law is its retroactive application to millions of people, some of whom were convicted decades ago.

CLS is to be commended for marshaling lawyers and other advocates to make the relief promised by this law a reality.  Other jurisdictions across the country will have their eyes on Pennsylvania as it works to harness technology in the service of reintegration.

The report’s overview is reprinted below:

Get Ready, Get Set: Pennsylvania Prepares for Clean Slate Implementation

By: Community Legal Services, Inc., Philadelphia, PA
First Published: March 6, 2019
Last Updated: March 13, 2019

Overview

Read more

CCRC launches major study of non-conviction records

CCRC is pleased to announce that we are undertaking 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.   Law enforcement agencies and courts frequently make these records available to the public allowing widespread dissemination on the internet, both directly and through private for-profit databases.  Their appearance 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.  Research has shown that limiting public access to these records through mechanisms like sealing and expungement is valuable in economic terms for those who receive this relief, and improvements in their economic status will in turn benefit their families and communities.

While almost every U.S. jurisdiction makes some provision for limiting public access to non-conviction records, such relief varies widely in availability and effect, and is often difficult to take advantage of without a lawyer.  What’s more, arrest records may remain accessible on the internet long after official court files have been made confidential or even destroyed.  While CCRC’s Restoration of Rights Project now includes state-by-state information on how non-conviction records may be sealed or expunged, our new project will examine the operation of applicable laws more closely.

The first phase of this project will produce by early June 2019 a detailed inventory of the laws in each U.S. jurisdiction for limiting public use of and access to records of arrests and/or judicial proceedings that do not result in conviction.  Among other things, this inventory will examine both: (1) categorical or automatic relief (such as general confidentiality laws and limits on considering non-conviction records by employers and licensing boards); and (2) case-specific relief (such as sealing and expungement, either automatic or by application).  For this second type of relief, the study will look at eligibility criteria (including waiting periods and overall criminal record), procedures (including filing fees or other financial barriers), and effect (entities excepted from restrictions on access and use). It will also note where state law or court rulings permit redaction of records so that dismissed charges may be sealed even if one or more charges in a case do result in conviction.

After completing the research phase of the project, CCRC will consult with scholars and practitioners to prepare a nationwide analysis, examining specific issues across all jurisdictions, identifying patterns and gaps in existing laws and policies.

The second and final phase of the project will be launched at a roundtable meeting on August 16-17, 2019, hosted by the University of Michigan Law School. The roundtable will produce a set of policy recommendations and model legislation aimed at neutralizing the effect of non-conviction records.  Professors JJ Prescott and Sonja Starr of the Law School faculty will serve as conference hosts and collaborators on this second phrase.  A number of legal scholars, practitioners, judges, law enforcement officials, and legislators have already agreed to participate.  At least three of those invited themselves have criminal records.  We expect to have several technology experts at the table to advise about the operational implications of the policies and legislation we are considering, in light of how states manage their criminal records systems.

Following the August roundtable, we will finalize its recommendations and model law with the assistance of scholars and other experts; publish them in a report; and promote them widely in the academic and advocacy community.

The principal value of this project will be to inform and strengthen efforts underway in legislatures and advocacy organizations across the country to mitigate the disabling effects of a criminal record on the lives of people who have one, on their families and on their communities.  We believe that reforming the law is as important a part of the reintegration agenda as advocating for and providing services to those who are seeking a second chance, and we hope this project will be the first stage of a larger national law reform effort to address access to and use of all types of criminal records. In light of the intense interest in legislatures across the country in mitigating the effect of criminal records, as evidenced in our 2018 report on relevant laws passed just last year, there is an obvious need for such guidance.  The first months of 2019 have evidenced an even greater level of legislative interest, on which we expect to report again shortly.

Read more

WA lifetime ban on childcare work held unconstitutional

On February 21, 2019, the Washington State Supreme Court declared that a state regulation imposing a lifetime ban from ever obtaining a childcare license, or having unsupervised access to children in childcare, is unconstitutional as applied to Chrystal Fields.  The lifetime ban was triggered by Ms. Fields’ 1988 attempted second degree robbery conviction for trying to grab a woman’s purse in front of a drugstore.  (The licensing agency has a list of 50 permanently disqualifying convictions, one of which is robbery; an attempted offense is treated the same as a completed offense.)  The court held that the licensing agency’s failure to conduct an individualized determination of Ms. Fields’ qualifications violated her federal right to due process.  Fields v. Dep’t of Early Learning, No. 95024-5 (Wash. Feb. 21, 2019).  The full decision is available here.  A brief discussion of the case follows.

Read more

Living with a marijuana conviction after legalization (updated)

Jacob Sullum, senior editor at Reason, has written a fabulous article about expungement of marijuana convictions in places that have since legalized marijuana: so far 10 states, DC, and the Northern Mariana Islands have legalized.  The piece is now available to the public at this link: http://reason.com/archives/2019/03/01/the-lingering-stench-of-mariju

Sullum tells the stories of eleven individuals, from the jurisdictions that have legalized, who describe how their marijuana convictions have impacted their lives before and after legalization.  He documents the lingering legal and social sanctions that burden people long after they have served their sentences, sanctions that “seem especially unjust and irrational in the growing number of U.S. jurisdictions that have legalized marijuana for recreational use.”

Read more

UK Supreme Court issues major ruling on employer access to criminal records

On January 30, 2019, the UK Supreme Court issued a significant decision largely upholding the UK’s categorical rules for when criminal records are disclosed to employers, but declaring two key rules incompatible with privacy rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.  The first rule in question, the so-called multiple conviction rule, automatically requires people who have more than one conviction to disclose all prior convictions on “standard” and “enhanced” records checks.  (As explained below, the UK disclosure scheme provides for three levels of checks, depending on the nature of the employment involved, the two specified being the more in-depth.)  The second rule requires that certain youth reprimands and warnings—administered without an admission or determination of criminal charges—be disclosed on both types of checks.  CCRC contributor Alessandro Corda posted about this case this past July when it was being considered by the court and Christopher Stacey, co-director of a charity organization that intervened in the case, who attended the three days of hearings, provided guest commentary.

The decision has significant implications for the employability of people with criminal records in the UK and could offer policy lessons for the US.  It is therefore worth discussing in some detail.

Read more

Sex offender registration litigation: punishment and free speech

In the past week, there were two notable developments regarding the constitutionality of state sex offender registration schemes.

First, as noted by Douglas A. Berman at Sentencing Law and Policy, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel filed highly significant amicus briefs in two Michigan Supreme Court cases, “arguing that Michigan’s sex offender registration and notification requirements are punishment because they are so burdensome and fail to distinguish between dangerous offenders and those who are not a threat to the community.”  Both of the Michigan cases involve constitutional challenges under the Ex Post Facto Clause to the retroactive application of the state registration requirement.  Michigan v Snyder, No. 153696; People v. Betts, No. 148981.

In the second development, U.S. District Judge W. Keith Watkins of the Middle District of Alabama on Monday held that Alabama’s sex offender registration law (“ASORCNA”) violates the First Amendment by branding state-issued ID cards with “CRIMINAL SEX OFFENDER” and imposing extensive internet-use reporting requirements.  Doe v. Marshall, No. 2:15-CV-606-WKW (M.D. Ala. Feb. 11, 2019).  This case presents an interesting twist on the now-vulnerable theory espoused by the U.S. Supreme Court and many states that sex offender registration is not “punishment.”

These two caselaw developments are discussed further below.

Read more

“Executive Clemency in the United States”

This is the title of CCRC Executive Director Margaret Love’s new article for the Oxford Research Encyclopedia.  The article describes the historic role played by the executive pardon power in reducing punishments (including collateral ones) and explains clemency’s diminished vitality and reliability in modern times in most states and in the federal system.  Love concludes that “[i]t appears unlikely that an unregulated and unrestrained executive power will ever be restored to its former justice-enhancing role, so that those concerned about fairness and proportionality in criminal punishments must engage in the more demanding work of democratic reform.”

Here’s the abstract:

Read more

Federal farm bill legalizes hemp, but bars participation based on criminal record

In the past six years, almost every state has taken at least some steps to chip away at the negative effects of a criminal record on a person’s ability to achieve employment, housing, education and public benefits, and participation in civil society.  In stark contrast, Congress has not dealt with the problem of reintegration for more than a decade—either by reducing federal collateral consequences or by restoring rights to people with federal convictions.  The new farm bill continues this trend.

Enacted on December 20, 2018, the bill puts in place a new regulatory regime for the legalized cultivation and sale of hemp, a variety of the cannabis plant grown for industrial uses.  At the same time, the bill adds a new collateral consequence to federal law (which already has more than a thousand): anyone convicted of a drug-related felony may not participate in legalized hemp production for 10 years after their date of conviction, unless they are part of a hemp pilot program authorized by the 2014 farm bill.  An earlier version of the farm bill would have banned people with drug-related felony convictions from participating in hemp production for life, so the final bill is somewhat more progressive.

This new restriction reflects and contributes to an ongoing practice in which many jurisdictions that have legalized marijuana have excluded people with marijuana convictions from participating in this booming new industry.  Moving in the other direction, some jurisdictions such as California and Massachusetts—recognizing racial disparities and other injustices of the war on drugs—have enacted policies to clear marijuana convictions, allocate marijuana tax revenue to communities disproportionately affected by past drug policies, and encourage full participation in legalized marijuana industries by members of disproportionately affected communities.

“Wealth-Based Penal Disenfranchisement”

This is the title of an important new article by Professor Beth Colgan, forthcoming in the Vanderbilt Law Review, in which she documents how inability to pay economic sanctions associated with a criminal conviction (such as fines, fees and restitution) results in continuing disenfranchisement nationwide.  While the law in almost every state now restores the vote to those convicted of felonies no later than completion of sentence, and while fewer than a dozen states explicitly condition re-enfranchisement upon payment of court-imposed debt, Colgan shows how the link between re-infranchisement and conditions of supervision “significantly expands the authorization of wealth-based penal disenfranchisement across the country.”  Through a detailed analysis of interrelated laws, rules, policies and practices, including those related to conditions of probation and parole, she establishes that “wealth-based penal disenfranchisement is authorized in forty-eight states and the District of Columbia.”

After describing the mechanisms of wealth-based penal disenfranchisement, Colgan offers a legal theory for “dismantling” them.  She argues that courts have looked at these mechanisms “through the wrong frame—the right to vote—when the proper frame is through the lens of punishment.”  Applying the doctrine developed in cases restricting governmental action that would result in disparate treatment between rich and poor in criminal justice practices, she concludes that wealth-based penal disenfranchisement violates the Fourteenth Amendment.

The article’s abstract follows:

Read more

1 … 20 21 22 23 24 … 58