Restoration of Rights Project – New Jersey Profile

Guide to restoration of rights, pardon, sealing & expungement following a New Jersey criminal conviction

Todd Berger & J.C. Lore, New Jersey Collateral Consequences (2014, LexisNexis Practice Guide).

Explains collateral consequences flowing from specific New Jersey criminal convictions, general classes of offenses and general types of offenses, as well as practice strategies, checklists, and appendices. This book is available from Barnes & Noble (see link above) and on line from Lexis Nexus.

New Jersey Juvenile Collateral Consequences Checklist

2015 guide by the Northeast Juvenile Defender Center

>> Select another state <<

Related blog posts:

Reintegration Champion Awards for 2021 (1/27/2022) - Based on our annual report on 2021 criminal record reforms, the bipartisan commitment to a reintegration agenda keeps getting stronger. A majority of the 151 new laws enacted last year authorize courts to clear criminal records, in some states for the very first time, and several states enacted “clean slate” automatic record clearing. Other new laws restore voting and other civil rights lost as a result of conviction, and still others limit how criminal record is considered by employers, occupational licensing agencies, and landlords. (The report includes specific citations to each of the new laws, and they are analyzed in the larger context of each state's reintegration scheme in our Restoration of Rights Project.) Again this year we have published a Report Card recognizing the most (and least) productive legislatures in the past year. While more than a dozen states enacted noteworthy laws in 2021, two states stand out for the quantity and quality of their lawmaking: Arizona and Connecticut share our 2021 Reintegration Champion award for their passage of three or more major pieces of record reform legislation. Arizona – The state enacted eight new laws, including a broad new record clearing law, two laws improving its occupational licensing scheme, and a judicial “second chance” certificate. Arizona also repealed a law authorizing suspension of driver’s licenses for failure to pay and authorized its courts to redesignate some felonies as misdemeanors. Connecticut – Enacted a major automatic record clearing scheme, restored the right to vote and hold office upon release from prison, provided for record clearing in connection with marijuana legalization, and broadened expungement for victims of human trafficking. Another eight states and the District of Columbia earned Honorable Mention for their enactment of at least one major new law: Alabama – Enacted first state record-clearing authority applicable to misdemeanor convictions and pardoned felonies, and extended non-conviction sealing. California – Gave retroactive effect to automatic conviction sealing law enacted in 2019. (This new law may be the most consequential of any enacted last year in terms of its impact on criminal records in the state, and it was done without fanfare or publicity.) District of Columbia – Enacted a comprehensive scheme to limit consideration of criminal record in occupational licensing. Illinois – Added employment discrimination based on conviction to the state Human Rights Act, authorized voter education for prisoners. New Jersey – Enacted a landmark fair housing bill; made some improvements to its 1970’s-era occupational licensing law; and, provided for automatic record clearing in connection with marijuana legalization. (New Jersey was our Reintegration Champion for 2019, but evidently is not resting on its laurels.) New Mexico – Improved 1970’s-era public employment and licensing law; authorized expungement of marijuana convictions; and, enacted a substantial part of the Uniform Collateral Consequences of Conviction Act, limiting and providing relief from collateral consequences. Ohio – Expanded eligibility for record-clearing; significantly improved occupational licensing law. Virginia – Authorized petition-based and automated record-clearing of non-convictions and convictions, including convictions for marijuana possession; restored vote upon release by executive order and took steps to amend constitution to this end. Washington – restored vote upon release from prison; amended occupational licensing standards for health professions; repealed driver’s license suspension based on outstanding financial obligations Low marks go to three states that enacted no record reform laws at all in 2021. While there are six other states in this category this year, the legislatures of Alaska, Massachusetts, and Wisconsin earn their place at the bottom of the heap for having been equally unproductive in 2020 and 2019, years in which almost every other state passed at least some law limiting access to and use of criminal records. The profile of each state's restoration of rights scheme from CCRC’s Restoration of Rights Project is linked above (except for the states that made no progress). The profiles contain citations and links to the relevant new laws so that interested individuals can check their specific terms.
Dozens of new expungement laws already enacted in 2021 (7/7/2021) - This year is turning out to be another remarkable year for new record relief enactments. In just the first six months of 2021, 25 states enacted no fewer than 51 laws authorizing sealing or expungement of criminal records, with another 5 states enrolling 11 bills that await a governor's signature. Three of these states authorized sealing of convictions for the first time, seven states passed laws (or enrolled bills) providing authority for automatic sealing, and a number of additional states substantially expanded the reach of their existing expungement laws. This post hits the highlights of what may well be the most extraordinary six-month period in the extraordinary modern period of criminal record reform that begin in 2013. The only closely comparable period is the first six months of 2018, when 11 states enacted major reforms limiting consideration of criminal records in occupational licensing. Further details of the laws mentioned below can be found in the relevant state profiles from the Restoration of Rights Project. (An earlier post noted new occupational licensing laws in 2021, and subsequent ones will describe significant extensions of the right to vote so far this year, and summarize the more than 100 record reforms enacted to date.) New Laws Three states enacted particularly significant new record relief schemes. Alabama and Virginia both authorized petition-based expungement of adult conviction records for the first time, with Virginia making relief for some misdemeanors and non-convictions automatic. Continuing the trend toward automatic expungement, Connecticut enacted a major "clean slate" bill authorizing automatic "erasure" of most misdemeanors and many felonies. All three of these important new laws are described in greater detail later in this post. In other legislative developments, Maryland authorized automatic expungement of non-conviction records after a three-year waiting period, and established a work group to study partial expungement of charges not resulting in conviction. Vermont took another step toward automation following last year's automatic marijuana expungement law, by authorizing automatic expungement of motor vehicle-related violations. At the same time, Vermont authorized a broad legislative study of its expungement laws, including the prospects for automation, to be completed by the beginning of the next legislative session. (This study follows on the heels of an inconclusive report from an executive working group charged with a similar study task in 2018.) South Dakota reduced the waiting period of its automatic sealing law (applicable to non-conviction records and some misdemeanors) from ten years to five. Tennessee expanded eligibility for petition-based expungement from misdemeanors and Class E felonies to include Class D and C felonies. It also made the filing fee discretionary with the court clerk, and required courts to both notify defendants of the availability of expungement and give reasons in writing if they deny this relief. Washington rewrote its laws applicable to victims of sex trafficking and related sexual abuses, authorizing vacatur for both B and C felonies and misdemeanors, and providing that a petition may be filed either by the victim or by the prosecutor. Four additional states made more modest improvements in their existing petition-based expungement schemes: Arkansas repealed an exclusion for anyone sentenced to prison; Nevada limited the power of the prosecutor to object to expungement, and facilitated expungement of pardoned convictions; North Dakota changed the condition of its waiting period from "no arrest" to "no conviction," and authorized sealing of DUI convictions; and Utah provided that restitution ordered by the parole board would no longer bar eligibility for expungement. Eight additional states extended their juvenile record expungement laws, and four states broadened authorities for diversion leading to expungement. New Mexico added to its significant 2019 expungement scheme by enacting most of the provisions of the Uniform Collateral Consequences of Conviction Act (UCCCA), giving its courts authority to relieve mandatory collateral consequences as early as sentencing (New York, Vermont, and New Jersey are the only other states with such authority). This same law not only offered this relief to those with convictions from other jurisdictions, it also gave effect to relief granted by other jurisdictions, the only state other than Vermont that has done this (also through its enactment of the UCCCA). Enrolled bills As of the end of June, four states had enrolled major record relief laws awaiting the governor's signature, two of which provided for automatic record sealing. The Delaware legislature passed Clean Slate legislation, automating sealing for most of the offenses that had been authorized for petition-based mandatory and discretionary sealing in 2019. The bill is to be effective in 2021, but sealing is to begin in August 2024. The Oregon legislature made substantial changes to eligibility criteria under its petition-based expungement law, described here, reducing waiting periods and modifying disqualifying priors. Colorado expanded eligibility for petition-based sealing and made sealing of non-conviction records automatic. The Michigan legislature send to the governor two bills providing for expungement of first DUI convictions, a category omitted from their 2020 package of record relief legislation. Finally, and perhaps most surprisingly, on the final day of its session the Arizona legislature for the first time ever passed a record-sealing bill and it is quite broad, applicable to most misdemeanors and felonies. Earlier in the session, the governor signed a bill authorizing courts to issue a "Certificate of Second Chance" when setting aside a conviction, which lifts mandatory bars to licensure and offers employers and landlords protection from liability. Marijuana expungement The first half of 2021 was also an unprecedented period for policymaking at the intersection of marijuana legalization and criminal record reform. Between February and April, four states enacted legislation legalizing recreational marijuana. In conjunction with legalization, these states (New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, and Virginia) also enacted innovative criminal policy reforms—including the automatic expungement of an exceptionally broad array of past marijuana convictions—along with a variety of social equity provisions. These laws are described in our report on Marijuana Legalization and Expungement in Early 2021. Since that report was published, Connecticut authorized petition-based marijuana expungement for a range of misdemeanors and felonies as well as limited automatic relief for some misdemeanors. Colorado also expanded petition-based marijuana expungement eligibility. The particularly significant relief schemes enacted in Alabama, Virginia and Connecticut are described in greater detail below. We will provide further details on the Arizona, Colorado, and Delaware laws when they are signed into law, as appears likely. Alabama: Until 2021, Alabama courts had no statutory authority to expunge or seal adult conviction records, with the exception of a narrowly drawn exception for victims of human trafficking. With enactment of Act No. 2021-286 (SB117), the so-called REDEEMER Act, Alabama courts were authorized to expunge non-violent misdemeanors and violations, and pardoned felonies. Eligible misdemeanors and violations may apply three years after conviction if “all probation or parole requirements have been completed, including payment of all fines, costs, restitution, and other court-ordered amounts, and are evidenced by the applicable court or agency.” Pardoned felonies are eligible 180 days after the pardon was granted. Convictions for violent and sexual offenses and “serious traffic offenses” are not eligible. Nor are the dozens of crimes of “moral turpitude” that are grounds for felony disenfranchisement, unless the crime was reclassified as a misdemeanor. There is also an administrative filing fee of $500, which may be waived under with a finding of indigency. Expunged records must remain available to law enforcement and prosecutors, utilities, the agency engaged in protecting children and vulnerable adults, and “any entities or services providing information to banking, insurance, and other financial institutions as required for various requirements as provided in state and federal law.” The REDEEMER Act also expanded the laws governing expungement of non-conviction records to cover violent felony charges that were dismissed with prejudice, nol prossed or indictment quashed (after limitation period has run or prosecutor confirms charges will not be refiled), and reduced the waiting period for expungement after diversion of misdemeanor charges to one year. A five-year waiting period was retained for felony charges dismissed without prejudice Virginia Until 2021, Virginia law made no provision for expunging or sealing conviction records, except those that have been vacated pursuant to a writ of actual innocence, or those which were the subject of an absolute pardon (for innocence). With enactment of HB 2113 and SB 1406, Virginia gained one of the more progressive record relief systems in the country, with a mixture of automatic and petition-based sealing, both for convictions generally and marijuana offenses specifically. The general record relief legislation (HB 2113) includes five key provisions: Establishes a system of automatic sealing for misdemeanor non-convictions, nine types of misdemeanor convictions, and deferred dismissals for underage alcohol and marijuana possession. Allows for sealing of felony acquittals and dismissals at disposition with the consent of the prosecuting attorney. Provides for sealing a broad range of misdemeanor and low-level felony convictions and deferred dismissals through a petition-based court process. Notably, court debt will not be a barrier to record clearance under the legislation. Introduces a system of court-appointed counsel for individuals who cannot afford an attorney for the petition-based sealing process. Requires private companies that buy and sell criminal records to routinely delete sealed records and creates a private right of action for individuals against companies that refuse to do so. The provisions of HB 2113 are scheduled to go into effect in 2025 (or earlier). A separate bill providing for marijuana legalization and expungement (SB 1406) authorized the automatic expungement of records related to certain misdemeanor marijuana offenses along with petition-based expungement of all other misdemeanor and many felony marijuana offenses. With the exception of the sealing of certain police records, these provisions are also scheduled to go into effect by 2025. Connecticut Public Act 21-42, Connecticut's "Clean Slate" law, establishes a process to automatically erase records of most misdemeanor convictions and certain felony convictions entered after January 1, 2000, after a specified period following the person’s most recent conviction for any crime (with an exception for certain drug possession crimes). Class C, D, or E felonies are covered, as are unclassified felonies with up to 10-year prison terms. The bill excludes family violence crimes and offenses requiring sex offender registration. Under the bill, misdemeanors are eligible for erasure seven years after the person’s most recent conviction for any crime; class D or E felonies or unclassified felonies with prison terms of five years or less are eligible after 10 years; and class C felonies or unclassified felonies with prison terms greater than five years but no more than 10 years are eligible after 15 years. For offenses before January 1, 2000, the records are erased when the person files a petition on a form prescribed by the Office of the Chief Court Administrator. Various provisions that now apply to erasure of non-conviction records also apply to erasure under this bill: no fee is charged, and partial expungement is available. That is, if the case contained multiple charges and only some are entitled to erasure, electronic records released to the public must be erased to the extent they reference charges entitled to erasure. The law requires all purchasers of court records, including background screening providers, to update their records on a regular basis. It extends these provisions to records of other agencies (State Police, DMV, Department of Correction). The bill prohibits various forms of discrimination based on someone’s erased criminal history record information, such as in employment, public accommodations, the sale or rental of housing, the granting of credit, and several other areas. In several cases, it classifies discrimination based on these erased records as a “discriminatory practice” under the state human rights laws. The automatic erasure provisions of the law take effect on January 1, 2023. This year is turning out to be another extraordinary year for new record relief enactments. In just the first six months of 2021, 22 states enacted no fewer than 47 separate laws authorizing sealing or expungement of criminal records, with another 5 states having enrolled 11 bills from awaiting the governor's signature. Three states authorized sealing for adult convictions for the first time, seven states passed laws (or enrolled bills) providing authority for automatic sealing of convictions, and several additional states substantially expanded the reach of their existing expungement laws. This post hits the highlights of what may well be the most extraordinary single 6-month period in this extraordinary modern period of criminal record reform. (The only one that comes close is the first six months of 2018, when 10 states enacted major reforms to their occupational licensing schemes.) (An earlier post noted new occupational licensing laws in 2021, and a subsequent one will describe significant extensions of the right to vote so far this year.) New Laws Three states enacted significant new record relief schemes. Alabama and Virginia both authorized petition-based expungement of adult conviction records for the first time, with Virginia making some misdemeanors and non-convictions automatic. Continuing the trend toward automatic expungement, Connecticut enacted a major "clean slate" bill authorizing automatic "erasure" of most misdemeanors and many felonies. All three of these important new laws are described in greater detail later in this post. In other legislative developments, Maryland authorized automatic expungement of non-conviction records after a three-year waiting period, and established a work group to study partial expungement of charges not resulting in conviction. Vermont took another step toward automation following last year's marijuana expungement law, by authorizing automatic expungement of motor vehicle-related violations. At the same time, Vermont also authorized a broad legislative study of its expungement laws, including the prospects for automation, to be completed by the beginning of the next session. (This study follows on the heels of an inconclusive report from an executive working group charged with a similar study task in 2018.) Tennessee expanded eligibility for petition-based expungement from misdemeanors and Class E felonies to Class D and C felonies, made the filing fee was made discretionary with the court, and required courts to notify defendants of the availability of expungement and give reasons in writing for denying this relief. Four additional states made more modest improvements in their existing petition-based expungement scheme: Arkansas repealed an exclusion for anyone sentenced to prison; Nevada limited the power of the prosecutor to object to expungement, and facilitated expungement of pardoned convictions; North Dakota changed the condition of its waiting period from "no arrest" to "no conviction," and authorized sealing of DUI convictions; and Utah provided that restitution ordered by the parole board would no longer bar eligibility for expungement. Seven additional states extended their juvenile record expungement laws, and four states broadened authorities for diversion leading to expungement. Enrolled bills As of the end of June, four states had enrolled major record relief laws awaiting the governor's signature, two of which provided for automatic record sealing. The Delaware legislature passed its Clean Slate Act, automating sealing for most of the offenses that had been authorized for petition-based mandatory and discretionary sealing in 2019. The bill was to be effective in 2021, but sealing was to begin in August 2024. The Colorado legislature sent to the governor a bill expanding eligibility for petition-based sealing and making sealing of non-conviction records automatic. The Oregon legislature made substantial changes to eligibility criteria under its petition-based expungement law, described here, reducing waiting periods and modifying disqualifying priors. Finally, and perhaps most surprisingly, the Arizona legislature for the first time passed a broad record-sealing bill applicable to most misdemeanors and felonies; it also authorized its courts to issue a "Certificate of Second Chance" when setting aside a conviction, which lifts mandatory bars to licensure and offers employers and landlords protection from liability. The Michigan legislature send to the governor two bills providing for expungement of first DUI convictions, a category omitted from their 2019 clean slate law. Marijuana expungement The first half of 2021 was also an unprecedented period for policymaking at the intersection of marijuana legalization and criminal record reform. Between February and April, four states enacted legislation legalizing recreational marijuana. In conjunction with legalization, these states (New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, and Virginia) also enacted innovative criminal policy reforms—including the automatic expungement of an exceptionally broad array of past marijuana convictions—along with a variety of social equity provisions. These laws are described in our report on Marijuana Legalization and Expungement in Early 2021. Connecticut also automated marijuana expungement but at a more modest level. Colorado and Montana both enacted petition-based marijuana expungement laws The important record relief schemes enacted in Alabama, Virginia and Connecticut are described in greater detail below. We will provide further details on the Arizona, Colorado, and Delaware laws when they are signed into law, as appears likely. Alabama: Until 2021, Alabama courts had no statutory authority to expunge or seal adult conviction records, with the exception of a narrowly drawn exception for victims of human trafficking. With enactment of Act No. 2021-286 (SB117), the so-called REDEEMER Act, Alabama courts were authorized to expunge non-violent misdemeanors and violations, and pardoned felonies. Eligible misdemeanors and violations may apply three years after conviction if “all probation or parole requirements have been completed, including payment of all fines, costs, restitution, and other court-ordered amounts, and are evidenced by the applicable court or agency.” Pardoned felonies are eligible 180 days after the pardon was granted. Convictions for violent and sexual offenses and “serious traffic offenses” are not eligible. Nor are the dozens of crimes of “moral turpitude” that are grounds for felony disenfranchisement, unless the crime was reclassified as a misdemeanor. There is also an administrative filing fee of $500, which may be waived under with a finding of indigency. Expunged records must remain available to law enforcement and prosecutors, utilities, the agency engaged in protecting children and vulnerable adults, and “any entities or services providing information to banking, insurance, and other financial institutions as required for various requirements as provided in state and federal law.” The REDEEMER Act also expanded the laws governing expungement of non-conviction records to cover violent felony charges that were dismissed with prejudice, nol prossed or indictment quashed (after limitation period has run or prosecutor confirms charges will not be refiled), and reduced the waiting period for expungement after diversion of misdemeanor charges to one year. A five-year waiting period was retained for felony charges dismissed without prejudice. Virginia Until 2021, Virginia law made no provision for expunging or sealing adult conviction records, except those that have been vacated pursuant to a writ of actual innocence, or those which were the subject of an absolute pardon (for innocence). With enactment of HB 2113 and SB 1406, Virginia gained one of the more progressive record relief systems in the country, with a mixture of automatic and petition-based sealing, both for convictions generally and marijuana offenses specifically. The general record relief legislation (HB 2113) includes five key provisions: Establishes a system of automatic sealing for misdemeanor non-convictions, nine types of misdemeanor convictions, and deferred dismissals for underage alcohol and marijuana possession. Allows for sealing of felony acquittals and dismissals at disposition with the consent of the prosecuting attorney. Provides for sealing a broad range of misdemeanor and low-level felony convictions and deferred dismissals through a petition-based court process. Notably, court debt will not be a barrier to record clearance under the legislation. Introduces a system of court-appointed counsel for individuals who cannot afford an attorney for the petition-based sealing process. Requires private companies that buy and sell criminal records to routinely delete sealed records and creates a private right of action for individuals against companies that refuse to do so. The provisions of HB 2113 are scheduled to go into effect in 2025 (or earlier). A separate bill providing for marijuana legalization and expungement (SB 1406) authorized the automatic expungement of records related to certain misdemeanor marijuana offenses along with petition-based expungement of all other misdemeanor and many felony marijuana offenses. With one exception, these provisions are also scheduled to go into effect by 2025. Connecticut Public Act 21-42, Connecticut's "Clean Slate" law, establishes a process to automatically erase records of most misdemeanor convictions and certain felony convictions entered after January 1, 2000, after a specified period following the person’s most recent conviction for any crime (with an exception for certain drug possession crimes). Class C, D, or E felonies are covered, as are unclassified felonies with up to 10-year prison terms. The bill excludes family violence crimes and offenses requiring sex offender registration. Under the bill, misdemeanors are eligible for erasure seven years after the person’s most recent conviction for any crime; class D or E felonies or unclassified felonies with prison terms of five years or less are eligible after 10 years; and class C felonies or unclassified felonies with prison terms greater than five years but no more than 10 years are eligible after 15 years. For offenses before January 1, 2000, the records are erased when the person files a petition on a form prescribed by the Office of the Chief Court Administrator. Various provisions that now apply to erasure of non-conviction records also apply to erasure under this bill: no fee is charged, and partial expungement is available. That is, if the case contained multiple charges and only some are entitled to erasure, electronic records released to the public must be erased to the extent they reference charges entitled to erasure. The law requires all purchasers of court records, including background screening providers, to update their records on a regular basis. It extends these provisions to records of other agencies (State Police, DMV, Department of Correction). The bill prohibits various forms of discrimination based on someone’s erased criminal history record information, such as in employment, public accommodations, the sale or rental of housing, the granting of credit, and several other areas. In several cases, it classifies discrimination based on these erased records as a “discriminatory practice” under the state human rights laws. The automatic erasure provisions of the law take effect on January 1, 2023.
New occupational licensing laws in 2021 (6/10/2021) - In the first five months of 2021, seven states and the District of Columbia enacted nine separate laws improving opportunities for people with a criminal record to obtain occupational licenses. This continues a four-year trend begun in 2017 that has seen 33 states and the District of Columbia enact 54 separate laws regulating consideration of criminal record in the licensing process. Our report on new legislation in 2020 noted that “[o]f all the criminal record reforms enacted during this modern reintegration reform era, no other approaches the regulation of occupational licensing agencies in terms of breadth, consistency, and likely efficacy.” Laws enacted during this four-year period have "transformed the licensing policy landscape across the Nation and opened opportunities in regulated professions for many thousands of people." The only period of law reform that rivals the present one came during the early 1970s, when many of the laws now being revised and extended were first enacted. The effectiveness of advocacy efforts by the Institute for Justice and National Employment Law Project in influencing this trend cannot be overstated. So far during 2021, the U.S. jurisdiction to have enacted the most ambitious and comprehensive licensing scheme is the District of Columbia, and its new law (described in detail below) is one of the most progressive in the nation. New Jersey, New Mexico and Washington had not previously legislated in this area for many years, and all three extended and improved laws first enacted in the 1970s. Arizona, Georgia, Ohio, and Tennessee extended recently enacted laws, with Arizona legislating for the fourth time in this area in as many years! The nine new laws are described below, and have been added to the state profiles and 50-state charts of the Restoration of Rights Project. Comprehensive licensing scheme enacted by the District of Columbia Act A23-0561, signed by Mayor Muriel Bowser on January 15, 2021, imposed a detailed regulatory scheme on many occupational licenses issued by the District of Columbia, including health-related professions. The new law is one of the broadest and most comprehensive in the country in the judgment of both CCRC and the Institute for Justice. The 2021 law provides that no one may be denied a license based on conviction of a crime unless it is “directly related” to the occupation for which the license is sought. (Under prior law a license could be denied if a conviction “bears directly upon the fitness” of the person to be licensed.) References to “good moral character” in prior law were struck. The new law also prohibits a board from inquiring into or considering an applicant’s criminal conviction until after the applicant is found to be otherwise qualified. After such inquiry, it may not consider a conviction that has been sealed, expunged, vacated, or pardoned, a juvenile adjudication, or non-conviction information, or one that whose elements are not found by “clear and convincing evidence” to be “directly related” to the occupation. In making this determination, a board must consider specific factors relating to the circumstances of the offense, the individual’s other record, evidence of rehabilitation, and “the District’s interest in promoting employment opportunities for individuals with criminal records.” Before denying a license based on a conviction a board must notify the applicant about the reasons for denial and offer a hearing, describe the information that may be provided to demonstrate rehabilitation and fitness, give the applicant an opportunity to respond, and issue a final decision within 45 business days after it receives a response. The board must also provide information on legal resources along with a hearing notice. The 2021 law also establishes a pre-application petition process for individuals to determine their eligibility based on a criminal conviction, which must be completed within 90 days. (The law does not state whether an affirmative conclusion at this preliminary stage is binding on the board.) This law applies to licenses issued by D.C.'s Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs and Department Health, but not occupations regulated outside of these agencies, including attorneys, teachers, notaries, taxi drivers, funeral directors, boxers, commercial drivers, and insurance agents. The Mayor must submit a report to the Council by January 1, 2022, identifying the statutory and regulatory collateral consequences of criminal records and recommendations for their mitigation or elimination. And, by January 1 of each year, the Mayor must submit to the Council a report with data relating to each board regulating health-related and non-health-related occupations. Significant revisions of existing general licensing laws 1. Arizona As modified in 2021 by HB 2787 (the fourth licensing law in three years), standards for disqualification now provide that an agency may refuse licensure to a person based on their criminal record only if a conviction “specifically and directly relates to the duties and responsibilities of the occupation” (except for offenses involving moral turpitude defined to include serious and violent offenses) and “the person, based on the nature of the specific offense that the person was convicted of and the person’s current circumstances, including the passage of time since commission of the crime, “is more likely to reoffend by virtue of having” the license than not. The 2021 amendments also require that certain records may not be considered: non-conviction records, including record of participation in a diversion program; a conviction that was sealed, expunged or pardoned; a juvenile adjudication; and a non-violent misdemeanor. 2. Georgia Existing law allowed licensing boards to deny licensure where a person was on community supervision, without requiring the person’s crime to be “directly related” to the occupation for which licensure was sought. SB-114 added supervision status to list of dispositions for which direct relationship is required. The new law does not apply to those on supervision for a felony crime against a person, including battery or assault, or for a crime requiring sex offense registration. 3. New Jersey Until 2021, New Jersey’s 1970’s-era law governing licensure by dozens of state licensing boards (most health-related licenses, accountants, architects, engineers, cosmetology, and many others) provided that boards could deny or suspend licensure upon conviction "of a crime of involving moral turpitude or relating adversely" to the regulated occupation. P.L.2021, c.81 (S942), modified the standard for denial or suspension of licensure by these state licensing agencies to "a direct or substantial relationship to the activity regulated by the board or is of a nature such that certification, registration or licensure of the person would be inconsistent with the public's health, safety, or welfare . . . ." 4. New Mexico The 1974 Criminal Record Employment Act in force prior to the 2021 amendments prohibited licensing boards from considering non-conviction records. As amended in 2021 by SB2, NM’s licensing agencies are precluded from considering convictions that have been sealed, dismissed, expunged or pardoned; juvenile adjudications; or convictions for a crime that “is not recent enough and sufficiently job-related to be predictive of performance in the position sought, given the position’s duties and responsibilities.” In addition, while "misdemeanors not involving moral turpitude" were omitted from the list of crimes that may never be considered, misdemeanors were also omitted from the provision allowing convictions to be considered if "directly related" to the license in question. The revisions leave open the possibility that a misdemeanor could be grounds for denying licensure as a teacher or child care provider only if they involved drug trafficking or child abuse. The 2021 amendments also omitted an alternative basis for disqualification based on insufficient rehabilitation. 5. Ohio Ohio’s existing law required licensing agencies to list crimes that mandate disqualification. As further amended in 2021 by HB 263, boards must list convictions that "may" be disqualifying, and other convictions and non-conviction records may not be grounds for denying a license. Vague terms like “moral character” and “moral turpitude” may not be used. If a conviction is on the list of those “directly related,” the board must still consider certain standards linked to an applicant’s overall record that are linked to public safety and may not deny after a period of either five or 10 years depending on the offense. In the event of denial, a board must provide procedural protections including written reasons and a hearing. These new features supplement the provision for a binding preliminary determination enacted by Ohio in 2019. 6. Tennessee The 2018 Fresh Start Act was amended in 2021 by SB768 to provide specific criteria governing a licensing board in determining the fitness of a person for licensure based on their criminal record, including the relationship of the crime to the ability performs the duties of the occupation, and evidence of the person’s rehabilitation. (The FSA already included a “direct relationship” standard.) The 2021 Act also deleted “a rebuttable presumption that the prior conviction relates to the fitness of the applicant or licensee” if the conviction was for a Class A, Class B, or certain Class C felonies, or if the felony conviction required registration as a sex offender or animal abuser. 7. Washington A 2021 law provides that each licensing agency shall allow potential applicants for a license to receive a "preliminary determination" as to whether their criminal record will be disqualifying. See 2021, ch. 194 (HB1399). No fee may be charged. This determination must be made within two months, and if it is negative must be accompanied by a statement of reasons. Another provision of HB1399 states that a licensing agency "may disqualify an individual from obtaining a professional license, government certification, or state recognition if it determines the individual's conviction is related to the occupation or profession unless the individual has requested and received a [Certificate of Restoration of Opportunity (CROP)]." See Section 3 of 2021, ch. 194 (HB 1399). It is not clear whether this law was intended to lower the "direct relationship" standard in § 9.96A.020(2). Another 2021 law gave new protections to employees of long-term care facilities, setting forth time limits beyond which certain theft and assault convictions will not be disqualifying. See 2021 Ch. 219 (HB1411). The CROP law was also amended to give protection to these employees.
New 2019 laws restore voting rights in 11 states (1/22/2020) - This is the first in a series of comments describing some of the 153 laws passed in 2019 restoring rights or delivering record relief in various ways. The full report on 2019 laws is available here. Restoration of Civil Rights Voting In 2019, eleven states took steps to restore the right to vote and to expand awareness of voting eligibility. Our experience is that many people convicted of a felony believe they are disqualified from voting when they are not: almost every state restores voting rights automatically to most convicted individuals at some point, if they are even disenfranchised to begin with. The most significant new re-enfranchisement laws were enacted in Colorado, Nevada and New Jersey, where convicted individuals are now eligible to vote except when actually incarcerated. Colorado restored the vote to persons on parole supervision, while Nevada revised its complex system for restoring civil rights so that all people with felony convictions may now vote except while in prison. In one of the final legislative acts of 2019, New Jersey’s governor signed a law limiting disenfranchisement to a period of actual incarceration, even in cases where a court has ordered loss of the vote for election law violations, immediately restoring the vote to 80,000 people. These three states joined the two states (New York and Louisiana) that in 2018 took steps to limit disenfranchisement to a period of incarceration: New York’s governor issued the first of a series of executive orders under his pardon power restoring the vote to individuals on parole, and Louisiana passed a law allowing people to register if they have been out of prison for at least five years. Now, only three of the 19 states that disenfranchise only those sentenced to prison still extend ineligibility through completion of parole: California, Connecticut, and Idaho. Bills under consideration in 2019 in both California and Connecticut would allow people to vote once they leave prison, though in California this will require a constitutional amendment. Kentucky saw perhaps the most dramatic extension of the franchise in 2019, when its incoming governor Andy Beshear issued an executive order restoring the vote and eligibility for office to an estimated 140,000 individuals convicted of non-violent felonies who had completed their sentences. Before the order, individuals were required to petition the governor individually to obtain restoration of their voting rights. (Governor Beshear’s father had issued a similar order in 2015 at the end of his own term as governor, but it was revoked by his successor.) Iowa is now the only state that does not restore the vote automatically to most convicted individuals at some point. Other states took less dramatic but nonetheless significant steps in 2019 to expand the franchise. Arizona repealed its law making automatic restoration of the vote to those with no more than one felony conviction depend on payment of fines and fees (those who owe restitution must still apply to the court, like recidivists, to regain their voting rights). (See below for Arizona's revision of its firearms restoration laws.) Arkansas corrected an unintended gap in its election law that made it hard for juveniles prosecuted as adults to regain the right to vote. Oklahoma revised its laws to clarify that voting rights are lost upon conviction of a felony and are restored upon completion of sentence. Four states (Colorado, Illinois, New Hampshire, and Washington) enacted laws directing corrections officials to inform people leaving custody of their eligibility to register, addressing the pervasive public misunderstanding that the right to vote is permanently lost by conviction. Illinois' two new laws on this subject also facilitate voting by mail for eligible persons detained in county jails, and provide for peer-led programs to teach civics to prisoners who are soon to be released. Florida is the only state that took steps during the year to restrict rather than enlarge the franchise, in the wake of that state’s restoration of the franchise in 2018, by ballot initiative, to more than a million state residents who had completed their court-imposed sentences. That ballot initiative automatically restored the right to vote for people convicted of felonies, other than murder or sexual offenses, upon “completion of all terms of sentence including parole or probation.” In 2019, the Florida legislature passed a law interpreting “completion of sentence” to include payment of fines, fees, and court costs. The 2019 legislation defines “completion of all terms of sentence” to include all legal financial obligations (LFOs). The Florida Supreme Court recently agreed in an advisory opinion that Amendment 4's reference to “completion of all terms of sentence” does include all legal financial obligation imposed in conjunction with a sentence. Nonetheless, individuals and supporters of Amendment 4 have brought several federal court challenges to the legislation as violating the U.S. constitution, arguing that by disqualifying persons with outstanding LFOs, even if a person has no ability to pay and even if the court has converted an LFO to a civil lien, the law violates the Equal Protection and Due Process guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment. They also argue that the law burdens the fundamental right to vote, is an unconstitutional poll tax, infringes on free speech and association, and was enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose. In October, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction, holding that Florida cannot deny the plaintiffs their "right to vote so long as the state’s only reason for denying the vote is failure to pay an amount the plaintiff is genuinely unable to pay." However, that ruling only applies to 17 plaintiffs in the case, and the judge deferred addressing a number of other issues until after trial later this year, giving the legislature an opportunity to address inability to pay. The coalition behind Amendment 4 is also raising money to help people pay off their debts. One of the knotty problems associated with efforts to re-enfranchise Florida residents is the uneven state of court records in the state, such that inconsistent and missing records can make it difficult for individuals to show that they have in fact fully satisfied financial penalties associated with criminal cases. In the broader national picture, at the conclusion of 2019 almost half the states allow people with a felony conviction to vote if they are living in the free community. A total of 18 states and the District of Columbia now allow people to vote unless in prison, Louisiana allows voting five years after release, and Maine and Vermont do not disenfranchise anyone based on conviction. Of the remaining states, a majority restore the vote automatically upon completion of sentence, which may or may not also require payment of court debt. However, a significant minority of states require at least some individuals (recidivists, persons convicted of specific offenses, or those who owe court debt) to file individual petitions with the governor or a court to regain the right to vote. The coming year should see additional developments in Florida regarding restoration for those with unpaid fines, fees, or restitution. This is turn could have ramifications for the half dozen additional states that impose similar financial barriers to the franchise. 2. Jury eligibility and public office Three other measures to restore civil rights for jury service and public office are worth mentioning. California passed a statute restoring eligibility for trial jury service upon completion of sentence (previously a pardon was necessary). Maryland also lowered its conviction-related bar to jury eligibility. Previously, people were ineligible to serve on a jury if they had received a sentence of more than six months of imprisonment, and were not pardoned, or had a pending charge for an offense punishable by more than six months imprisonment; under the new law, these six-month periods are extended to one year. Finally, New Hampshire revised its law disqualifying people with a conviction from holding public office, making the restriction applicable only during actual incarceration, so that it is now coincident with the period of felony disenfranchisement (this limit on disenfranchisement to only during actual incarceration has been in place in the Granite State since 1965). 3. Firearms restoration Arizona revised its law on firearms restoration to authorize the sentencing court to restore rights to most people with felony offenses two years after completion of sentence. (Note that the automatic restoration of civil rights for offenses does not include restoration of firearms rights.) People convicted of “serious” offenses must wait 10 years, and those convicted of “dangerous” offenses are ineligible for restoration. SB 2080.
Legislative update: third quarter 2019 sees more new licensing and expungement laws (10/11/2019) - In July we reported on the extraordinary number of new laws enacted in the first half of 2019 aimed at restoring rights and status after arrest and conviction. A total of 97 separate pieces of legislation, some covering multiple topics, were enacted by 38 states and many broke new ground in their jurisdictions. Moreover, clear trends begun in 2018 accelerated in the first half of 2019, as state lawmakers continued to focus most of their attention on facilitating access to record-clearing. In addition, a significant number of new laws limited the authority of occupational licensing boards to disqualify a person based on criminal record. Another area of progress was restoring voting rights. Those trends continued over the summer, with 17 new laws, including significant laws enacted to regulate occupational licensing and expand record relief, including but not limited to marijuana convictions. Several states showed a keen interest in exploring the possibility of automating record relief, although only one state actually enacted an automatic relief system by the end of the quarter (New York, for marijuana convictions). (California enacted a "clean slate" law shortly after the beginning of the fourth quarter.) At the end of the third quarter, Arkansas, Colorado and Florida were studying the feasibility of automating relief, North Carolina was considering automatic expunction of non-conviction records, and the Governor of New Jersey was attempting to persuade his legislature to adopt an automated system for convictions as well as non-convictions.) By the end of the third quarter of 2019, 42 states had enacted an unprecedented total of 114 laws restoring rights and status, and more new laws on the horizon. All of the laws described briefly below are more fully analyzed in the context of the state's overall restoration scheme, in the detailed profiles of the Restoration of Rights Project. Occupational licensing Florida and North Carolina enacted impressive occupational licensing schemes. Florida's new licensing provisions added by H7125 appear targeted to trades learned in the state prison system, and also provide that: “A conviction, or any other adjudication, for a crime more than 5 years before the date the application is received by the applicable board may not be grounds for denial of a [specified] license.” Boards are permitted to consider violent and sexual offenses but only if they “relate to the practice of the profession.” Starting on October 1, 2019, and updated quarterly thereafter, the boards must compile a list identifying each crime used as a basis for a license denial. North Carolina’s new law prohibits disqualification from licensure unless a crime is “directly related” to the license involved, requires written reasons in the event of denial, and provides for a preliminary determination as to whether an individual will be favorably considered that is binding on the board when the applicant later applies. The new law also requires licensing boards to report annually to the legislature on their consideration of applications from people with a criminal record. In New Hampshire, HB 637 created two categories of criminal history information to be maintained by the state police records repository, one “confidential” and the other “public.” “Confidential criminal history information” (defined to include non-conviction records and records of convictions that have been annulled) will no longer be disseminated for employment and licensing purposes. Sealing and expungement Florida substantially reorganized its laws relating to sealing and expungement of non-conviction records in H7125, and the Department of Law Enforcement was directed to create an automatic process for sealing eligible non-conviction records. See Fla. Stat. § 943.0595. Four states (DE, HI, NH and NY) passed laws authorizing expungement or sealing of marijuana possession convictions. Of these new laws, New York's law setting up an automated relief system is by far the most significant, because it seals the record without requiring eligible individuals to apply to the court for relief. Individuals whose records are sealed may, further, apply later to have the record destroyed. As an important recent study by JJ Prescott and Sonja Starr established, where laws make relief depend upon a burdensome petition process, few eligible individuals will take advantage of them. (As the third quarter ended, a far broader "clean slate" bill was poised for enactment in California, and was signed on October 7.) Relatedly, in August, New Jersey's governor Phil Murphy refused to sign a bill substantially expanding expungement in that state, which included but was not limited to marijuana convictions, on grounds that its cumbersome petition process did not go far enough in addressing the problem of dated convictions. The governor cited with approval the "clean slate" law enacted by New Jersey's neighboring state Pennsylvania, and proposed a series of measures aimed at developing a similar automated system in his state. As of this writing, the governor has been unable to persuade the legislature to adopt it, but we may expect to see another pass at the problem before year's end. Two more states (HI and NC) expanded their provisions offering record relief to victims of human trafficking convicted of any non-violent offense linked to their victim status. Civil rights Finally, New Hampshire revised its law disqualifying people with a conviction from holding public office, making the restriction applicable only during actual incarceration, so that it is now coincident with the period of felony disenfranchisement (this limit on disenfranchisement to only during actual incarceration has been in place in the Granite State since 1965). Perhaps more significant, HB 486 requires the commissioner of the department of corrections to ensure that probation/parole officers receive instruction on the current state of the law regarding the civil rights of individuals convicted of a felony, and to direct that individuals serving a suspended sentence or on parole receive "written notice that he or she may vote during the period of the suspension or parole." Similar provisions were enacted earlier in the year in Colorado and Washington. In our experience, many people who have been convicted of a felony believe that they cannot vote long after their rights have been restored - and some (like those in New Hampshire not sentenced to prison) never lost the right to vote in the first place.
NJ AG tells prosecutors collateral consequences may determine which marijuana violations to pursue (9/14/2018) - New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal recently issued new Guidance reminding municipal prosecutors that they cannot categorically refuse to prosecute marijuana cases while the Legislature is considering proposals relating to decriminalization. That said, the guidance reminds prosecutors that they have considerable discretion when deciding which maijuana cases to pursue. While this advice is fairly standard stuff, the second half of the guidance document is a fascinating glimpse into prosecutorial decision-making as it relates to collateral consequences. It follows a growing scholarly and legal consensus calling for opening the “black box” that is the prosecutorial mindset. For too long, the thought-processes behind prosecutorial decisions have eluded the public eye. In essence, the guidance advises that the decision whether or not to bring charges may depend upon a defendant’s exposure to severe collateral consequences if convicted. Recognizing that prosecutors should consider collateral consequences brings their obligations closer to those imposed on defense attorneys by the Supreme Court eight years ago in Padilla v. Kentucky. Padilla required defense attorneys to know the immigration consequences faced by their clients or risk being labeled constitutionally ineffective. Many defense attorneys, public defenders, and legal aid organizations have devoted substantial effort to ensuring their clients know about housing, employment, educational, and other consequences that might attach to a conviction. But any public defender can tell you that reliance on overburdened defense and legal aid attorneys to warn defendants and educate prosecutors about collateral consequences is bound to frustrate the goal of increasing systemic literacy. The value of the new AG guidance is in placing a burden on prosecutors to discover and take into account the effect of collateral consequences in particular cases in deciding whether or not to prosecute. Treating awareness about collateral consequences as a defense-only problem ignores an important reality: that the lack of awareness about collateral consequences is pervasive throughout the system, and many front line prosecutors could better appreciate the range of consequences faced by individuals after a plea deal. In most cases, prosecutors hold almost all of the cards and have significant resource advantages. They are the architects of dispositions through a variety of bargaining tactics. Some prosecutors see consideration of collateral consequences during prosecution as beyond their purview, instead focusing solely on the elements of the crime and nothing else. Others consider collateral consequences as a way to accomplish objectives not achievable by the criminal system. The Guidance from the New Jersey Attorney General aims to put both on the table. Prosecutorial awareness of collateral consequences relates directly to a prosecutor’s obligation to do “justice,” both as a legal and ethical matter. Collateral consequences are often harsher than direct punishments themselves. They can inhibit full reentry, incapacitate unnecessarily, and essentially amount to double-punishment for the same crime. Even the most retributive prosecutor has to concede that many automatic collateral consequences are disproportionate to the original offense, especially for low-level, order-maintenance offenses. Additionally, and although New Jersey has a broader right to counsel than exists at the federal level, some defendants remain unrepresented in low-level prosecutions that have serious consequences. This means that a defense attorney may not even exist to help the defendant gain awareness of collateral consequences. In those instances, a prosecutor’s willingness to consider such consequences is crucial to ensure fairness and equity. In short, there is more work to be done. In addition to allowing prosecutors to consider collateral consequences in marijuana-related prosecutions, prosecutor offices should devote resources to learning about the range of consequences faced by criminal defendants in other cases. Offices should have field guides to such consequences, including the ones that are most common for certain types of offenses. This heightened awareness, coupled with a new appreciation for the role of the 21st century prosecutor tasked with doing justice, could contribute to more just plea-bargaining all around, as both parties will be more informed about whether a particular disposition is “just.” Second, for cases involving unrepresented defendants, a working group could be created to study whether there is room for a legal basis for having prosecutors involved in the informing of defendants about potential and automatic collateral consequences that might result from a plea. Of course, any such solution would need to comport with the applicable legal and ethical obligations of prosecutors towards unrepresented persons. Third, future guidance could be issued regarding consideration of collateral consequences during other phases of a prosecution. The same collateral consequences also appear during bail determinations, probation or parole violation proceedings, and at expungement hearings. Although these stages of a prosecution do not bear directly on guilt or innocence, the prosecutor’s stance can influence a judge’s decision, and New Jersey law affords prosecutors authority to intervene. Other states have similar statutes, meaning additional attention is needed in these areas.
New research report: Four Years of Second Chance Reforms, 2013-2016 (2/8/2017) - Introduction Since 2013, almost every state has taken at least some steps to chip away at the negative effects of a criminal record on an individual’s ability to earn a living, access housing, education and public benefits, and otherwise fully participate in civil society. It has not been an easy task, in part because of the volume and complexity of state and federal laws imposing collateral consequences. To encourage employers and other decision-makers to give convicted individuals a fair chance, some states have enacted or modified judicial restoration mechanisms like expungement, sealing, and certificates of relief. Others have extended nondiscrimination laws, limited criminal record inquiries, and facilitated front-end opportunities to avoid conviction. In partnership with the NACDL Restoration of Rights Project, the CCRC maintains a comprehensive and current state-by-state guide to mechanisms for restoration of rights and status after conviction. As a part of keeping that resource up to date, we have inventoried measures enacted and policies adopted by states in the past four years to mitigate or avoid the disabling effects of a criminal record, and present it here as a snapshot of an encouraging national trend. Summary of findings Between 2013 and 2016, forty-two states and the District of Columbia adopted significant reforms of various types. The most common of these reforms are ban-the-box laws and policies that prohibit employers from inquiring into an applicant’s criminal history during the initial stages of the application process. Twenty-one states banned the box in public employment, and eight (CT, DC, IL, MN, NJ, OR, RI, and VT) expanded their ban-the-box prohibitions to cover private employers as well. Expungement and sealing authorities were also expanded in a significant number of states. Arkansas, Indiana, and Minnesota enacted comprehensive new expungement/sealing schemes that grant many individuals an opportunity to have their records sealed from public view and/or rights restored for the first time. Additionally, California, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Missouri all expanded existing expungement/sealing laws to make certain felonies eligible. Maryland, Pennsylvania, and South Dakota enacted entirely new authorities limiting public access to misdemeanor records. Another fifteen states expanded existing expungement or sealing opportunities, either to increase the number and type of eligible offenses and dispositions, or to broaden the protections afforded to, or rights restored by, an expunged or sealed record. Unfortunately, stiff filing fees in states like Louisiana and Kentucky will inevitably discourage people of limited means from taking advantage of these new authorities. Judicial and/or administrative “certificates of relief” were also made available in nine states for the first time. These certificates adhere to a “forgiving,” as opposed to “forgetting,” model of criminal record mitigation. The new certificates with the broadest application and effect are those in Ohio and Vermont, both of which are modeled after provisions in the Uniform Collateral Consequences of Conviction Act (UCCCA) that authorize courts to completely remove specified mandatory collateral consequences imposed by law, allowing individuals to be considered for employment or licensing opportunities on the merits. Colorado's new "order of collateral relief" provides relief from mandatory consequences specified in the order, with exceptions, but is only available for non-prison sentences. The new certificate authorities in most other states either protect employers and/or other private entities from negligent hiring or retention claims based solely upon their agent’s conviction, or prohibit employers or licensing bodies from denying applicants “based solely upon” their conviction. The effect or availability of pre-existing certificate authorities were expanded in another three states. Another notable trend was the expansion of the effect and availability of deferred adjudication and diversion mechanisms, which allow individuals to avoid conviction altogether following successful completion of probation or other conditions. Five states (AL, CA, DE, GA, NJ) enacted legislation explicitly authorizing expungement or sealing of deferred adjudication records for the first time, while Colorado and Illinois enacted entirely new deferred adjudication authority. These programs provide a great benefit to those who can take advantage of them, but, in many states, prosecutorial control of these programs can result in disparate treatment and costly relief. >>View the full report below or download here<<
Expungement expansion round-up (2016 edition) (5/23/2016) - More and more states are enacting new expungement and sealing laws, or expanding existing ones, some covering convictions for the first time. The first four months of 2016 alone saw courts given significant new authority to limit access to criminal records in four states, and bills have been introduced in several others that promise more new laws in months to come. In April, Kentucky authorized expungement of felonies for the first time, while New Jersey reduced waiting periods for some offenses and made expungement automatic for some others. Also in April, Maryland's Governor Hogan signed that state's Justice Reinvestment Act, permitting expungement of misdemeanor convictions for the first time. Beginning in November, Pennsylvania courts will have new authority to seal misdemeanor offenses, and follow-up bills have been introduced in both houses to make sealing automatic for most non-felony records after a waiting period. There are also several pending proposals to significantly expand existing expungement laws in Oklahoma, Missouri, and Rhode Island. We take a closer look at each of these new expungement authorities below. The new laws evidence the growing momentum behind second-chance reforms. They also show how expansion of expungement and sealing mechanisms can be an incremental process. For example, the legislatures in Maryland and Pennsylvania first tested the waters by giving courts new authority to mitigate low-level conviction records in relatively limited ways, with both following up shortly after with proposals to increase both the availability and effectiveness of those mechanisms. Meanwhile, states with fairly robust expungement mechanisms already in place, like New Jersey, Missouri, and Kentucky, have taken steps to make relief available sooner and to more people. Relatedly, in the first four months of 2016, six more states enacted or expanded state-wide ban-the-box laws limiting inquiry about criminal records at early stages of the hiring process, bringing the total to 23. Perhaps the most significant thing about these legislative initiatives is the almost total absence from the debate of objections based on public safety concerns. Indeed, to the extent the principal purpose of expungement laws is to increase employment opportunities for people with a criminal record, their proponents argue that they actually reduce recidivism. As legislators and their constituents witness firsthand the additional benefits provided by each small expansion of expungement authority, they are increasingly willing to take those reforms a few steps further. For a review of expungement laws in all 50 states, see here. Newly enacted and newly effective legislation: Kentucky – HB-40 In April, Governor Matt Bevin signed HB-40, giving people convicted of certain non-violent Class D felonies or who have had received a full pardon the opportunity to petition to have their convictions vacated, charges dismissed, and records expunged. Previously, expungement was only available for misdemeanors. A waiting period of five crime-free years applies, and vacatur and expungement may only be sought once in a person’s lifetime (though multiple eligible felonies stemming from the same incident may be expunged under a single petition). Expunged records are deleted from official databases (including law enforcement), will not show up in background checks, and need not be acknowledged. The court and other agencies “shall reply to any inquiry that no record exists on the matter.” Felony expungement also restores the right to vote. The law will take effect in July. The law’s short waiting period and broad effect are good news to anyone with an eligible conviction, but the high $500 filing fee required to apply could make relief unattainable for many Kentuckians. The irony is that the people most likely to benefit from the new law -- those who have difficulty finding employment because of their record -- are the same people least likely to be able to afford the fee. High filing fees have come recently under fire in Tennessee, where the $450 filing fee for expungement has become so prohibitive that groups have resorted to creating private funds to pay the fees on behalf of petitioners. You can view our guide to restoration of rights, pardon, expungement & sealing in Kentucky here; and our in-depth post on the new law here. New Jersey – P.L. 2015, c. 261 In April, P.L. 2015, c. 261 went into effect, authorizing immediate expungement following successful completion of drug court or court-ordered rehabilitation, allowing for early expungement of youthful drug offenses, reducing the waiting period for expungement of both misdemeanors (or “disorderly persons offenses,” as they are known in the Garden State) and felonies (“indictable offenses”), and allowing felonies and misdemeanors to be expunged at the same time. The new law also makes expungement of non-conviction records automatic and immediate. The law’s drug court expungement provision is expected to have the greatest impact. According to one article, “in the last 15 years, nearly 20,000 people have been enrolled in the state’s Drug Court program.” Under the new law, anyone who successfully completes a court-ordered rehabilitation program under NJSA § 2C:35-14 may have the record expunged immediately upon discharge. Expungement is mandatory “unless [the court] finds that the need for the availability of the record outweighs the desirability of having the person freed from any disabilities associated with their availability.” The law is retroactive, so that people who were successfully discharged prior to the new law's effective date can petition the convicting court for expungement. Expungement under this provision is not necessarily permanent, though: Acess to the record may be restored if the person is subsequently convicted of a crime, and “no future expungements shall be granted.” In effect, this gives individuals only one bite at the expungement apple. The new law also allows persons convicted of low-level drug offenses when they 21 years old or younger to petition for expungement just one year after completion of their sentence if they have no other convictions and no probation or parole violations. The presumptive waiting period for felony and misdemeanor expungement through the normal route remains ten and five years, respectively. However, the new law offers an “early pathway” to expungement: If the court finds that expungement “is in the public interest, giving due consideration to the nature of the offense, and the applicant’s character and conduct since conviction,” then the court may expunge a felony after five years and a misdemeanor after three. Though a person may only seek expungement once, up to three misdemeanors may be expunged at the same time, and, under the new law, up to two misdemeanors may be expunged at the same time as a single felony. Previously, expungement of a misdemeanor precluded felony expungement, and conviction of a felony precluded misdemeanor expungement. If multiple offenses are expunged at once, the waiting period runs from the date of the latest conviction. The legislature had originally proposed to reduce the waiting periods for felonies and misdemeanors outright (five years for felonies and three years for misdemeanors). The discretionary waiting period reduction that found its way into the new law was the result of a compromise with Governor Christie, who vetoed the original proposal in January, saying: As written, this bill would cut in half the presumptive waiting period to expunge indictable offenses, often felonies, from ten years to five years, and eliminate an important safeguard which allows a judge to consider whether granting an expungement is in the public’s interest. The current public interest exception to the presumptive waiting period is an effective and efficient way to help ex-offenders combat the collateral consequences of their offense, while also ensuring that public safety is not compromised. Taken as a whole, the new law represents a major overhaul of New Jersey’s expungement scheme, making it easier for people to clear their records and allowing them to do it sooner. Unfortunately, the new law did not expand upon the list of offenses that are eligible for expungement through the usual route. In addition to violent felonies, most first and second degree non-violent drug crimes remain ineligible. You can view our guide to restoration of rights, pardon, expungement & sealing in New Jersey here. A "New Law Advisory" on the changes published by the Administrative Office of the Courts is available here. Maryland – Justice Reinvestment Act (SB-1005) Just this month, Maryland Governor Larry Hogan signed the Justice Reinvestment Act, a comprehensive criminal justice reform bill that authorizes courts to expunge misdemeanor offenses for the first time. The new expungement authority follows closely on the heels of a law enacted last year that allowed for “shielding” of certain misdemeanors. Records expunged under the new bill are subject to more expansive protections than those that are merely “shielded;” however, the waiting period for sealing is much longer. Under the new law, over 100 enumerated misdemeanors are eligible for expungement after ten crime-free years. Eligible offenses include second degree assault, drug possession, prostitution, theft, disorderly conduct, various fraud offenses, and various regulatory offenses. Second degree assault and “domestically related offenses” are subject an an extended 15-year waiting period. Only 12 non-violent misdemeanors are eligible for shielding under the law enacted last year, but a record may be shielded after only three years. Expungement under the new law is discretionary, and a court can only grant a petition if sealing “is in the best interests of justice,” and the person does not pose a public safety risk. Shielding is similarly discretionary, but may be granted under a lower “good cause” standard. Records that are expunged are afforded more protection than those that are shielded, which explains the heightened eligibility requirements that apply to expungement. A record that is expunged may only be opened by court order and is destroyed after three years. A person may not be required to disclose information about an expunged records to an employer, educational institution, or government licensing agency. Additionally, a person cannot be denied employment or licensure solely because of a refusal to disclose an expunged record. Shielded records are afforded far less protection in comparison: Though they are not publicly available and may not generally be used by employers or licensing boards, any employer or licensing agency that is required or authorized by law to inquire into a person’s criminal record may access a person’s shielded record, as may health occupation boards, child care facilities, and the medical marijuana commission, and others. Prior to the enactment of the new shielding and expungement laws, there was no way to hide or get rid of any adult criminal conviction, with small exceptions for nuisance offenses, decriminalized offenses, and pardoned non-violent first-offender convictions. In spite of the legislature’s recent flurry of action, all felonies remain ineligible for expungement or shielding. The new law will take effect on October 1, 2017. You can view our guide to restoration of rights, pardon, expungement & sealing in Maryland here; and our in-depth post on the Mafryland "shielding" law enacted last year here. Pennsylvania SB-166 (2015) Beginning on November 14, Pennsylvanians will be able to seal the records of 2nd and 3rd degree misdemeanors and ungraded offenses under an “order for limited access,” thanks to a law enacted last year. As was the case in Maryland before the passage of the shielding law, there was previously no way for Pennsylvanians to seal or expunge their conviction records (with narrow exceptions for certain elderly applicants and pardoned convictions). Sealing will be available after a ten-year waiting period, during which time the petitioner may not have been arrested or prosecuted for another offense. People with certain convictions, including simple assault (except in the 3rd degree), four or more offenses punishable by imprisonment of one or more years, and any offense punishable by more than two years’ imprisonment, will be ineligible. Sealing appears to be discretionary, though the law provides no standards to guide the court’s discretion. Sealed records will not disappear and will not be entirely confidential. They will remain available to state professional and occupational licensing agencies and to agencies such as the Department of Human Services for child protective services uses, as well as to criminal justice agencies. However, sealed records will be unavailable to the general public, including private employers and landlords, and, unless requested by an agency to whom disclosure is already authorized, “no individual shall be required nor requested to disclose information about the person’s [sealed] criminal history records.” The limited effect of sealing is understandable from a political perspective given that this is Pennsylvania's first general authority for sealing convictions. What is less understandable is the fact that an arrest for conduct not proven in court resets the ten-year waiting period -- itself already relatively long compared to the waiting periods for sealing of minor convictions in other jurisdictions. As discussed in the next part, the legislature is already considering broadening the effect of sealing, but there have been no proposals to amend the law to address the effect of arrests. You can view our guide to restoration of rights, pardon, expungement & sealing in Pennsylvania here. Pending legislation Pennsylvania SB-1197/HB-1984 Twin “Clean Slate” bills introduced in April would follow up on last year’s sealing bill by making make sealing automatic upon satisfaction of an eligibility waiting period: Ten years for misdemeanors, five years for summary offenses, and seven years for juvenile adjudications. Sealing of non-conviction records will be automatic and immediate. The bills would also eliminate the exception under the current law that allows for most occupational and licensing boards to consider records that have been sealed. tisan sponsorship. According to Community Legal Services of Philadelphia, both bills have received broad bi-partisan support, and indeed the Senate passed its bill unanimously not long after its introduction. Missouri SB-588 On May 11, the Missouri legislature passed a bill that would significantly reduce the waiting periods for both felony and misdemeanor expungement. The bill is currently awaiting action from Governor Nixon, who said he will give it serious consideration. The bill would reduce the waiting period for felony expungement from 20 years down to seven. Misdemeanor waiting periods would be reduced from ten years to three. If the bill is approved, it is expected to drastically increase the number of expungement applications filed in the state. One report notes that, “according to a financial analysis of the proposal, the additional number of people filing for expungement could trigger the hiring of hundreds of workers to process the requests.” The benefit of reduced waiting periods would come with a trade-off, though: Under the proposed law, a person would only be able to expunge one felony or two misdemeanors in their lifetime (although, multiple offenses resulting from the same indictment would be treated as a single expungement of the highest-level offense). Under current law, there is no limit on the number of convictions that can be expunged, with the odd caveat that a person cannot receive more than one expungement order from the same court. You can view our guide to restoration of rights, pardon, expungement & sealing in Missouri here. Oklahoma HB-2397 House Bill 2397, which is currently in conference in Oklahoma’s Senate, would reduce the expungement waiting period for people sentenced to a term of imprisonment or suspended sentence from ten years down to five. Additionally, people convicted of misdemeanors would be allowed to seek expungement immediately upon satisfaction of a fine of $500 or less, so long as imprisonment or a suspended sentence was not ordered. The bill would also allow those convicted of up to two non-violent felonies that have been pardoned to seek expungement. You can view our guide to restoration of rights, pardon, expungement & sealing in Oklahoma here. Rhode Island H-7536, S-2111 Two separate expungement bills are now in committee in the House and Senate. The bill in the House, H-7536, would authorize courts to expunge up to five misdemeanors if a person has remained conviction and arrest-free for ten years and has never been convicted of a felony. The current law only allows for expungement of first-offender misdemeanors. The bill is chiefly backed by Attorney General Peter Kilmartin, a former police officer. The bill in the Senate, S-2111, would permit courts to expunge records related to a deferred sentence immediately upon compliance with all of the terms of the deferral agreement so long as the person has never been convicted of a crime of violence. Deferred sentencing records can be sealed under the current law, but expungement provides a slightly higher degree of protection than sealing. Under both bills, expungement would be contingent upon a person demonstrating "good moral character." You can view our guide to restoration of rights, pardon, expungement & sealing in Rhode Island here.
Special interests succeed in watering down NJ Opportunity to Compete Act (11/30/2014) - In updating our book on New Jersey Collateral Consequences, J.C. Lore and I analyzed the provisions of New Jerseys' new Opportunity to Compete Act, signed by Governor Christie in August and scheduled to become effective on March 15, 2015. The Act applies a ban-the-box requirement to most public and private employers with more than 15 employees. Having followed the bill through its passage in the House last spring, we were disappointed but not surprised to see that there were a number of employer-friendly amendments added to the Act just prior to final action in the Senate, with the result that there is a great deal of uncertainty about what the law actually accomplishes. The important provisions omitted from the bill in the Senate, after lobbying by business and industry groups, included A prohibition on considering certain types of criminal histories, including conviction records after a certain number of years; A private right of action against employers; A definition of "initial employment application process" that permits inspection of criminal records at an earlier stage of the employment process; A requirement that an employer make a good faith effort to discuss the applicants criminal record if it is of concern; and A provision permitting negligent hiring suits in cases of "gross negligence." The bill as amended also preempted local ban-the-box laws, so that Newark's more progressive ban-the-box ordinance appears to be on life support. Attached are the enacted version of the New Jersey Opportunity to Compete Act, as well as the "advance law" with brackets to show which language was removed in the Senate. EDITOR'S NOTE: Much chastened, the author of the NACDL Restoration of Rights Resource has made appropriate modifications in the New Jersey profile. Note that similar last-minute amendments also substantially weakened the Delaware ban-the-box law, omitting similar provisions that would have prohibited employers from considering certain types of criminal records, notably convictions more than 10 years old. In the same fashion, last-minute amendments to Vermont's Uniform Collateral Consequences of Conviction Act restricted its coverage to less serious offenses, disappointing its sponsors. The lesson for advocates is that they must be eternally vigilant for last-minute lobbying by special interests to dilute provisions of progressive legislation intended to give people with a criminal record a fairer chance in the workplace. - ML
Split NJ Supreme Court holds sex offender GPS tracking is punishment subject to ex post facto limits (10/20/2014) - As reported in this local article, headlined “Some sex offenders can’t be forced to wear GPS monitors, N.J. Supreme Court rules,” the top state court in the Garden State issued a significant constitutional ruling holding that New Jersey cannot force sex offenders to wear GPS tracking devises if they were convicted before the monitoring program was signed into law seven years ago. The court voted 4-3 to uphold an appellate panel’s decision that said it was unconstitutional for the state Parole Board to require George C. Riley to wear the ankle monitor when he was released from prison in 2009 after serving 23 years for attempted sexual assault of a minor. Justice Barry Albin wrote that Riley, 81, of Eatontown, should not be subject to the 2007 law because it constitutes an additional punishment that was not included in the sentence he already served. The Court agreed with the lower court that the “retroactive application” of the GPS program to Riley violates the ex post facto clauses in the U.S. and state Constitutions, which safeguard against imposing “additional punishment to an already completed crime.” The court also rejected the state’s argument that the GPS monitor is not punitive but “only civil and regulatory.” “Parole is a form of punishment under the Constitution,” Albin wrote for the high court. “SOMA is essentially parole supervision for life by another name.” He added that “the disabilities and restraints placed on Riley through twenty -four-hour GPS monitoring enabled by a tracking device fastened to his ankle could hardly be called ‘minor and indirect.'” The full ruling in Riley v. New Jersey State Parole Board, No. A-94-11 (NJ Sept. 22, 2014) is available at this link. –Read full article at Sentencing Law and Policy.