Name: Collateral Consequences Resource Center
Address: 15 Seventh Street, N.E., Washington, DC, 20002, US
Telephone: 12022360484

Restoration of Rights Project – Vermont Profile

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

Vermont Compilation of Collateral Consequences

Interactive database of collateral consequences imposed by Vermont and federal statutes and regulations. Prepared by the Collateral Consequences Resource Center for the Vermont Attorney General.

>> Select another state <<

Related blog posts:

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.
More states enact major “second chance” reforms (6/11/2018) - In recent weeks, three more states -- Colorado, Louisiana and Vermont -- have enacted laws intended to make it easier for people with a criminal record to find and keep employment, or otherwise to regain rights and status. We are just now noting Wyoming's enactment in March 2018 of general standards for professional and occupational licensure, which impose new restrictions on how criminal record may be taken into account by licensing agencies, and its amendment of more than a dozen specific licensing laws. In the first five months of 2018 alone, a total of 21 states have enacted legislation to improve opportunities for people with a criminal record, with more similar laws evidently on the way. States have enacted several different types of "second chance" laws this year, from expansion of voting rights to expansion of judicial authority to relieve collateral consequences at sentencing. On May 25, Vermont Governor Phil Scott signed into law an expansion of the state's expungement authority for both adult and juvenile offenders, reducing waiting periods and other eligibility criteria for qualifying felony and misdemeanor convictions. The new law also authorizes courts to expunge non-conviction records 12 months after the conclusion of the case, without need for a petition from the defendant, and without regard to the nature of the offense. This is the third time in recent years that Vermont has extended eligibility for expungement. On May 29, Colorado Governor Hickenlooper signed a bill extending the state's existing authority for sentencing courts to waive application of collateral consequences affecting employment, licensing, and other opportunities and benefits, to make this relief available in all cases regardless of sentence. Previously this waiver authority was available only in cases involving a community-based penalty. Courts are authorized to take action as early as sentencing and throughout the period an individual is under sentence. In this respect, the law resembles the authority proposed by the American Law Institute in the collateral consequences provisions of its new Mode Penal Code: Sentencing. The Colorado law is described in detail in the Colorado profile from the Restoration of Rights Project. At the end of May, Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards approved several "second chance" bills: One new law extends voting rights to anyone under sentence for a felony who has not been actually incarcerated in the past five years; two additional laws make minor adjustments to the state expungement law, to exempt deferred adjudication cases from the 15-year eligibility waiting period for a second expungement, and to add to the requirements for filing an expungement motion. Another new law requires the governor to conduct regular periodic reviews of the standards applied by occupational licensing agencies. As finally enacted, this last-mentioned law substantially watered down provisions in earlier versions of the legislation that would have limited agency consideration of criminal records in licensing actions. Earlier this spring, Wyoming enacted a new provision of its general state licensing code establishing a "direct relationship" standard for consideration of conviction by all licensing agencies not otherwise subject to a specific contrary statutory standard. See Wyo. Stat. § 33-1-304. See Enrolled Act 63 (March 2018), available at http://www.wyoleg.gov/2018/Enroll/SF0042.pdf. This provision prohibits consideration of prior convictions that are more than 20 years old, except where the person is still under sentence or the sentence was completed fewer than 10 years ago, and unless the elements of the offense are "directly related to the specific duties and responsibilities of that profession or occupation." Among the new law's policies is that agencies should ensure that applicants have an adequate opportunity to appeal a denial. Wyoming also amended more than a dozen specific professional and occupational licensing statutes to rescind vague qualifications like "good moral character," and to substitute functional criteria specifically tying the nature of a particular crime to the licensed activity pursuant to a direct relationship standard. Licensing schemes affected include those regulating teachers, guides and outfitters, engineers, veterinarians, and nursing home administrators. Licensing standards for chiropractors, nurses, optometrists, dental hygienists, social workers, and marriage and family counselors and substance abuse counselors were also amended. Securities dealers and investment advisers, insurance agents, and athlete agents are covered by the reforms. Legislatures in several other states have passed bills that are currently awaiting approval of the governor, including Illinois, New Hampshire, and Tennessee. The only "second chance" legislation we know of that was disapproved by the governor is the South Carolina legislature's unsuccessful attempt to authorize expungement of drug convictions. We expect again to provide a summary of all new laws enacted in 2018 toward the end of the year, and we will also be keeping the state profiles and other resources in the Restoration of Rights Project up to date in real time.
New expungement legislation: Maryland and Oklahoma (5/8/2018) - The trend toward expanding expungement and sealing laws is continuing. In the last week of April, the governors of Maryland and Oklahoma signed bills enlarging eligibility criteria and reducing waiting periods, joining Florida and Utah with new record-sealing enactments in 2018. The provisions of these two newest laws are described below. Similar legislation is well along in Illinois, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Vermont. Vermont S 173, enrolled and awaiting the governor's signature, is of particular interest since it makes expungement automatic in some categories without the requirement of a petition or filing fee ("unless either party objects in the interest of justice"). We are tracking these pending bills and will add them to the Restoration of Rights Project if and when they are enacted. Oklahoma: On April 26, 2018, Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallon signed into law SB 650, making felony offenders eligible for expungement (sealing) for the first time without requiring that they first be pardoned. Effective November 1, 2018, a person may apply to the court for expungement of a single nonviolent felony conviction 5 years after completion of sentence, if the person has not been convicted of any other felony or separate misdemeanor in the past seven (7) years, and if no felony or misdemeanor charges are pending. Okla. Stat. Ann. § 18(A)(12) (as amended by SB 650 (2018)). The 2018 law reduces the waiting period from 10 years to five; deletes a requirement that the person have no prior felonies, or any separate misdemeanor in the past 15 years; and omits a requirement that the person first be pardoned. Okla. Stat. Ann. § 18(A)(12), as amended. Oklahoma's additional provisions for expungement of misdemeanor convictions, non-conviction records, and pardoned felonies are explained in the Oklahoma profile from the Restoration of Rights Project. Maryland: On April 24, Governor Larry Hogan signed SB 101, adding felony offenses involving theft, drug trafficking and burglary to the list of more than 100 misdemeanors first made eligible for expungement in 2016. The waiting period for felonies is 15 years after completion of sentence, while most misdemeanants must wait 10 years. (Misdemeanors involving "domestically related crimes" and second degree assault are subject to a 15-year waiting period.) In addition, SB 101 eliminated the three-year waiting period previously applicable to expungement of non-conviction records, except for "probation before judgment" cases. The new provisions are explained in greater detail in the Maryland profile from the Restoration of Rights Project. Also in April 2018, the Maryland legislature acted favorably on a bill to require state licensing agencies to report by October 1, 2018 on the number of licenses granted or denied based on conviction in the past five years. The fact that HB 1597 has been awaiting Governor Hogan's action for more than a month does not bode well for its prospects. States that have enacted new general occupational licensing requirements this year include Indiana, Tennessee, Arizona, Wisconsin, Massachusetts and Nebraska, with an enrolled bill awaiting action in Kansas. These new laws are the subject of several recent posts (see, e.g., here and here) and are written up in detail in the relevant state profiles from the RRP.
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<<
“Vermont sheriff risks his career by hiring a sex offender” (5/5/2016) - Vermonter Rich Cassidy, who chairs the CCRC Board, drew our attention to this extraordinary story of courage and compassion and plain good sense in the Green Mountain State. Published last week in the Vermont weekly Seven Days, it tells the story of LaMoille County Sheriff Roger Marcoux Jr.'s decision to take a chance on Timothy Szad, described as "a gifted carpenter and diligent worker" who is also "Lamoille County's most notorious criminal." Here are a few introductory paragraphs to a story well worth reading in full. In 2000, Szad stalked and sexually assaulted a 13-year-old boy in the southern Vermont woods. He went to jail for his crime and served the maximum sentence. But his punishment didn't end when he got out, in 2013. His release was widely publicized, which generated something of a vigilante reaction. So he embarked on a cross-country journey in search of a new home. When no place would have him, he wound up back in Vermont — this time, in sleepy Hyde Park. The reception was predictable. Local residents circulated a poster with his photo on it, and some demanded that he leave. People took out no-trespass orders against him, filed false reports of Szad committing new crimes and even affixed an image outside his home that showed him hanging from a noose. But the outcry died down after Lamoille County Sheriff Roger Marcoux Jr., who grew up on a local dairy farm, did something unexpected: He welcomed Szad. Marcoux met with him, talked to him, took an interest in his life. The sheriff told the sex offender he would look out for him, as long as Szad kept out of trouble. "I had a responsibility to protect him as much as to protect people from him," Marcoux said. Szad described his police sponsor as "like a big brother." Several months ago, however, Marcoux went further. He hired Szad to renovate buildings that will serve as the sheriff's department office. The men have reached an improbable, and uneasy, alliance that has left Szad hopeful and Marcoux nervous: The sheriff is putting his trust in a man who, while he owns up to his crimes and says he wants to repair his life, still doesn't completely trust himself. "I still have sleepless nights," Marcoux said. "What if I'm wrong?"
Vermont becomes 8th state to ban the box in private employment (5/5/2016) - Starting next summer, private as well as public employers in Vermont will no longer be permitted to ask about a job applicant's criminal history on an initial employment application. The change comes with the enactment of House Bill 261, which Governor Peter Shumlin signed into law yesterday. With the law's enactment, Vermont becomes just the eighth state to ban the box in private employment. When CCRC Board Chair Rich Cassidy testified in favor of the provision before the Vermont legislature, he emphasized the importance of extending the prohibition to private employers. In a signing ceremony, Governor Shumlin, who last year issued an executive order banning the box in public employment, had the following to say about the new law's significance: Too many Vermonters with criminal records are unable to successfully re-enter their communities due to lack of employment. Banning the box is all about breaking down barriers and giving those Vermonters who have paid their debt to society a fair chance at finding a good job. Nobody wins when Vermonters are trapped in a cycle of unemployment and incarceration. According to Christopher Curtis, co-chair of the Governor’s Pathways from Poverty Council, This legislation will allow many qualified workers to get a foot in the door to employment – it’s a fair shake and a second chance for many applicants who might otherwise find their applications in the recycle bin as a result of a prior conviction. This only results in Vermonters not being able to keep their housing or meet other important obligations. Ban the box’ can help open up new job opportunities for Vermonters. Twenty-four states and the federal government have now adopted ban-the-box policies that apply to public employment, but Vermont joins only seven others (Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, and Rhode Island) in extending the policy to private employers. The ban-the-box movement has gained significant traction nation-wide: In 2016 alone, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Wisconsin have also adopted such policies. Last week, at President Obama's direction, the Office of Personnel Management proposed rules that would ban the box in federal agency hiring. However, the President declined to extend the rule to private employers by applying it to federal contractors to it. Under the new Vermont law, an employer may only ask about criminal history during an interview or after the prospective employee has been deemed otherwise qualified for the position. Employers that violate the law will be assessed a $100 civil penalty for each violation. Though the Vermont law applies generally to all employers, it does not apply to positions where state or federal law creates a mandatory or "presumptive" employment disqualification based on one or more types of convictions. However, the law does provide that, in such cases, the scope of the inquiry may only cover those convictions that would trigger the disqualification. It also gives those excepted employees an opportunity to explain the circumstances of any conviction, including post-conviction rehabilitation. The law takes effect on July 1, 2017. The press release on the signing from Governor Shumlin's office is available here.
Vermont becomes the 16th state to ban the box! (4/27/2015) - On April 22 Vermont became the 16th state to remove the question about criminal record from most state employment applications. By Executive Order of Governor Peter Shumlin, people applying for most state jobs will not be required to undergo a background check until after they have been deemed qualified and offered an interview. http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/osd.jshttp://api.bounceexchange.com/bounce/init1.js?tojQ=function&tzo=240&is_preview=false&website_id=914&resolution=1112x770&referrer=&calling_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.burlingtonfreepress.com%2Fstory%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2F2015%2F04%2F21%2Fvermont-criminal-history-ban-box%2F26141535%2F&visit_cookie=%7B%22lp%22%3A%22http%253A%252F%252Fwww.burlingtonfreepress.com%252Fstory%252Fnews%252Fpolitics%252F2015%252F04%252F21%252Fvermont-criminal-history-ban-box%252F26141535%252F%22%2C%22r%22%3A%22%22%7D&cookie=%7B%22v%22%3A%7B%22bx_click_url%22%3A0%2C%22bx_click_cid%22%3A0%2C%22pre_conv_url%22%3A%22http%3A//www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/politics/2015/04/21/vermont-criminal-history-ban-box/26141535/%22%2C%22referrer%22%3A0%2C%22article_count%22%3A2%2C%22article_url%22%3A%22http%3A//www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/politics/2015/04/21/vermont-criminal-history-ban-box/26141535/%22%7D%2C%22fvt%22%3A1422053351%2C%22vid%22%3A1430147252843978%2C%22ao%22%3A0%2C%22as%22%3A0%2C%22vpv%22%3A1%2C%22d%22%3A%22d%22%2C%22lp%22%3A%22http%253A%252F%252Fwww.burlingtonfreepress.com%252Fstory%252Fnews%252Fpolitics%252F2015%252F04%252F21%252Fvermont-criminal-history-ban-box%252F26141535%252F%22%2C%22r%22%3A%22%22%2C%22cvt%22%3A1430147252%2C%22gcr%22%3A65%2C%22m%22%3A0%2C%22lvt%22%3A1430147252%2C%22ibxt%22%3A%22MTQyMjA1Mjc0Nzg2OTA5Mg%253D%253D%22%2C%22sid%22%3A0%7D&vars%5Bsubscription%5D=none&vars%5Bbx_click_url%5D=0&vars%5Bbx_click_cid%5D=0&vars%5Bpre_conv_url%5D=http%3A//www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/politics/2015/04/21/vermont-criminal-history-ban-box/26141535/&vars%5Breferrer%5D=0&vars%5Bpaymentcard%5D=false&vars%5Blogged_in%5D=false&vars%5Barticle_visible%5D=true&vars%5Barticle_count%5D=2&vars%5Barticle_url%5D=http%3A//www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/politics/2015/04/21/vermont-criminal-history-ban-box/26141535/&vars%5Barticle_change%5D=0&vars%5Bgravity_ad_show%5D=false&vars%5B/neil-young-play-first-show-vermont%5D=false&vars%5B/winooski-rejects-new-obriens-liquor-license%5D=false&vars%5B/winooski-will-join-lawsuit%5D=false&vars%5B/vermont-finishers-boston-marathon%5D=false&vars%5B/neil-young-fans-line-tickets%5D=false&vdef%5Bbx_click_url%5D=0&vdef%5Bbx_click_cid%5D=0&vdef%5Bpre_conv_url%5D=0&vdef%5Breferrer%5D=0&vdef%5Barticle_count%5D=0&vdef%5Barticle_url%5D=0 "When we hire in-state, the first question will not be whether you've been convicted or arrested," Shumlin said. "We will hold that question until the interview and give you a chance to qualify for the job for which you've applied." About 8 percent of people seeking Vermont state jobs checked the criminal history box last year, according to the state Human Resources Commission. Certain sensitive and law enforcement positions are excepted. In remarks at a signing ceremony, Shumlin and a key lawmaker said they were "waiting to see" if private employers ought also to be required to postpone inquiry into a job applicant's criminal record. Governor Shumlin also reported that the Vermont legislature is "nearly finished" with a bill to allow more Vermonters to expunge criminal convictions from their records, including for youthful offenses. Last year Vermont enacted the Uniform Collateral Consequences of Conviction Act, which authorizes courts to relieve mandatory collateral sanctions, and gives employers a measure of protection against liability for negligent hiring. Important support for the ban-the-box order came from T.J. Donovan, Crittenden County State's Attorney: This is about reconciliation. No prosecutor or judge expects a petty larceny or minor theft conviction to keep an offender from ever getting a job again. Many times we don't consider what that scarlet letter or that conviction is going to do to folks three, five, 10 years down the road. Some states, including Illinois, Hawaii and New Jersey, have passed laws that prohibit private employers from asking about criminal histories on job applications. A committee of the Vermont House is is considering a similar bill, and Shumlin said "it's worth a look": "I would hope that by the state leading by example, that many private employers might adopt the same policy," Shumlin said. "I know that's happening in other states around the country." "The state's experience with this with state workers will help inform our process as we move forward with it in the future," said Rep. Helen Head, D-South Burlington, chairwoman of the House labor committee.
New York certificate scheme found inaccessible and ineffective (2/23/2015) - The certificate system for restoring rights after conviction in New York no longer serves its intended purposes, according to an investigation by City Limits. The problem is that Certificates of Relief from Disabilities (CRD) are supposed to be a means to rehabilitation for people sentenced to probation, but the judges authorized to issue them see them (in the words of one public defender) "as a gold star, as a thing you get after you've been rehabilitated." The Parole Board appears similarly reluctant to issue Certificates of Good Conduct (CGC) to people leaving prison, even after a waiting period. The requirement of proof of rehabilitation as the price of a certificate has created what the City Limits investigation describes as "a catch-22": A conviction can bar someone from public housing. It can keep them from getting professional licenses—such as the ones required to direct funerals, or be a security guard or a home health aide, among many others. And employers stigmatize people with convictions, making it hard for them to get jobs. These are the problems certificates were created to remedy, but also the problems people often have to surmount before they're deemed worthy of one. When Governor Hugh Carey approved the two-track system in 1976 he declared that "Providing a former offender a fair opportunity for a job is a matter of basic human fairness, as well as one of the surest ways to reduce crime." But apparently this animating spirit of the law has been all but forgotten. For years New York was the only state to offer relief from collateral consequences as early as sentencing, and was hailed as a model for other jurisdictions. Indeed, 10 years ago advocates urged the Connecticut legislature to implement reforms modeled after New York's law. Now it seems New York could take a lesson from its neighbor to the East, whose recently revised relief scheme provides early targeted relief to aid rehabilitation, and fuller recognition of rehabilitation some time later. Part of the problem is that New York's system tries to do too much with a single certificate. That is, both certificates have essentially the same legal effect, except that one (CRD) is for probationers with no prior felonies, and the other (CGC) is for all others. In contrast, the two-stage relief process Connecticut has adopted addresses both reentry and full restoration, similar to the Uniform Collateral Consequences of Conviction Act adopted in Vermont, and is conceptually and functionally preferable to New York's two-track certificate system. The clear distinction in function between early and later relief in Connecticut makes it easier for each to fulfill its assigned role. New York's system is coceptually muddled and therefore functionally ineffective. The Connecticut system also avoids the problem identified by City Limits that more liberal issuance of certificates to facilitate reentry at an early stage may water down their value later on: "if more people got certificates as a matter of course, it could end up undermining the idea that they show that someone is rehabilitated." The City Limits investigation also found that certificates are issued rarely because few New York lawyers and judges know about them: Roland Acevedo, a lawyer who's sued employers for discriminating against people with criminal histories, says lawyers are often as unaware about certificates as the people they represent. He adds that some judges, despairing of a defense lawyer's ignorance, will suggest to the lawyer that they apply for a certificate for their client—that is, apply to the very judge suggesting that they apply. "A lot of lawyers don't know so they don't ask," Acevedo says. "It's amazing how many people don't know this law." This is not to say that New York certificates don't work in certain cases, but those cases are likely to involve capable lawyers with clients who know exactly what they want: But for those that do [know about certificates], Certificates can be powerful. After getting convicted of tax evasion back in 2010, the Ciprianis were in danger of losing the liquor licenses that made their restaurants possible. But the family, "whose lawyers are undeniably more talented than their cooks," as the New York Observer put it, got a Certificate of Relief at their sentencing, which ultimately allowed them keep the licenses. But lawyers say that rarely happens for the average person.
Long waits for expungement frustrate public safety purposes (2/18/2015) - Recently, in commenting on a new expungement scheme enacted by the Louisiana legislature, we noted the disconnect between the stated reentry-related purposes of the law and its lengthy eligibility waiting periods. If people have to log many years of law-abiding conduct before they can even apply for this relief, it is not likely to be of much help to people returning home from prison. Were Louisiana lawmakers unaware that the new expungement law would be unlikely to serve its stated purposes, or did they have some reason for advertising the new law in terms they knew were inapt. The preamble to the new Louisiana law says it is intended "to break the cycle of criminal recidivism, increase public safety, and assist the growing population of criminal offenders reentering the community to establish a self-sustaining life through opportunities in employment.” But a felony offender is ineligible to apply for expungement until ten years after completion of sentence, long after recidivism has ceased to be a statistical risk. In other words, the new law is not likely to do much if anything to “break the cycle of recidivism” or help people “reentering the community” (presumably from prison). Even misdemeanants have to wait five years before they are eligible. The only people whose records can be expunged immediately are those who were never convicted to begin with. Wouldn't people returning to the community from prison be more likely to benefit from supportive social services, rehabilitative programming, and assistance with obtaining transitional jobs and housing? It is possible that the legislators expected the availability of expungement at some future time to provide an incentive to stay on the straight and narrow -- but the reference to employment opportunities upon "reentering the community" suggests they had something more immediate in mind. Relief after a long period of law-abiding conduct also serves a useful purpose to recognize a person's full rehabilitation, but it does nothing to overcome obstacles faced by people upon their release from prison. The formulaic recitation of public safety-related purposes to justify providing relief from collateral consequences is not unique to Louisiana, and neither is the apparent contradiction with those purposes presented by extended eligibility periods. New broad expungement schemes in Indiana, Minnesota and Arkansas also make felony offenders wait years without another run-in with the law before they can apply for relief. Any notion that expungement of conviction records will facilitate reentry or discourage reoffending is either mistaken or disingenuous. Expungement of arrest records is another matter, though concepts of "reentry" and "recidivism" don't strictly apply where a person is not convicted. So this raises three questions: 1) why can't we enact relief from collateral consequences at a time when it will in fact facilitate reentry and impact public safety; 2) why aren't we doing more to avoid conviction in the first place; and 3) why are legislators and other government officials so hesitant to justify restoration of rights in terms of fairness and/or reward? The answer to Question #1 is that only a few states have enacted laws authorizing relief from collateral consequences as early as sentencing, when it could be of genuine help with reentry. New York has had such a law for years, for first offenders sentenced to probation. Vermont, Colorado and New Jersey now also have laws authorizing the sentencing court to dispense with mandatory collateral consequences, and bills that would accomplish this have been introduced in several other states. Relief at sentencing is a feature of both the Uniform Collateral Consequences of Conviction Act and the Model Penal Code: Sentencing, so perhaps this will be the wave of the future. Note, however, that not a single state provides record-closing relief to convicted persons prior to completion of sentence, so advocates would do well to consider more transparent forms of relief during the period covered by the sentence. Question #2 gets a more hopeful answer: more than half the states have opportunities for diversion and deferred adjudication followed by expungement or sealing. This means that people charged with minor offenses can avoid a conviction record if they successfully completion of probation. But again, this is not a "reentry" remedy strictly speaking since by definition the person never leaves the community. And, in those jurisdictions that condition eligibility on a guilty plea, they may be subject to collateral consequences during the period of probation. The new Model Penal Code: Sentencing has provisions implementing both diversion and deferred adjudication that do not require a formal plea, and whose specific goal is to enable people to avoid incurring collateral consequences. Since there is never a conviction, the person may answer honestly that they have never been convicted. These provisions originated in the 1970s when reformers were interested in encouraging rehabilitation through sentencing, as we perhaps are again today. (I would note it is high time that the federal government expanded the only authority it now has for deferred adjudication, 18 USC 3706, from drug possession to any minor offense.) Question #3 is rhetorical.
Louisiana’s new expungement law: How does it stack up? (1/16/2015) - Louisiana has far and away the largest prison population of any state in the country (847 per 100,000 people -- Mississippi is second with 692 per), but until last year there was little that those returning home after serving felony sentences could do to unshackle themselves from their criminal records and the collateral consequences that accompany them. While Louisiana has for years authorized expungement of misdemeanor convictions and non-conviction records, the only relief available to convicted felony offenders was a governor's pardon -- very few of which have been granted in Louisiana in recent years. Most people convicted of a felony in the state, no matter how long ago and no matter how serious the conduct, were stuck with it.* That's why we were interested to learn that in 2014 Louisiana enacted a brand new freestanding Chapter 34 of its Code of Criminal Procedure to consolidate and extend the law governing record expungement to many felonies. We decided to find out what the new law offers to those with felony records, and how it stacks up against the three other new comprehensive expungement schemes in Arkansas, Indiana, and Minnesota. We found that while a relatively large number of people with felony convictions are newly eligible for expungement relief, the law's effectiveness is hampered by 1) unreasonably long waiting periods and 2) limited effectiveness in mitigating collateral consequences related to employment and licensure. Waiting periods According to its preamble, the ostensible purpose of the new Louisiana law is to "to break the cycle of criminal recidivism, increase public safety, and assist the growing population of criminal offenders reentering the community to establish a self-sustaining life through opportunities in employment." See Art. 971. The law states an aim to provide relief from post-9/11 restrictions on TWIC credentials necessary to work in ports or on vessels under the federal Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002. Id. However, its eligibility waiting period seem inconsistent with these purposes: A felony record may not be expunged until ten years after completion of sentence, which itself may be many years after leaving prison. Such a long waiting period is not likely to do much to "break the cycle of recidivism" or address the issues facing those "reentering the community" from prison. Even misdemeanants have to wait five years after completion of sentence to apply. Moreover, because the federal MTSA only restricts eligibility for TWIC credentials only for a ten-year period for most offenses, the new law does nothing to ease restrictions on maritime employment. By the time a person with a felony conviction becomes eligible for expungement, their TWIC eligibility has already been restored. The waiting periods for felony expungement under the three other comprehensive new expungement laws are shorter -- though still long enough to make us question their utility in reducing recidivism or assisting reentry. Eligibility for felony expungement in Indiana is three to five years years from completion of sentence or eight years after conviction (unless the prosecutor agrees to a shorter period) and five years after conviction for a misdemeanor. In Minnesota the waiting period for expungement of all eligible felonies is five years after completion of sentence (two years for misdemeanors). Arkansas allows "sealing" of felonies five years after completion of sentence, though misdemeanors are eligible for sealing as soon as the sentence is completed. (Compare the relief available as early as sentencing under the Vermont Uniform Act and Colorado's new drug expungement laws.) A Louisiana record may not be expunged if the person has been convicted of a crime during the waiting period, or has charges pending. The same is true in Indiana and Minnesota. Like Minnesota, Louisiana places no limit on the number of felonies that may be expunged during a person's lifetime, though in Louisiana a felony may only be expunged once every 15 years. In Indiana, a person may seek expungement of multiple offenses through one expungement petition, but only one petition may be granted in a person's lifetime. In Arkansas, an individual may only "seal" one felony conviction. Eligible offenses Unreasonable waiting periods aside, the Louisiana law takes a relatively expansive approach to eligibility, especially compared to the limits Arkansas and Minnesota place on the types of felonies that are eligible for relief. Under Louisiana's law, the only felonies that cannot be expunged are those for violent offenses, sex offenses, crimes against minors, and drug trafficking offenses (mere possession with intent to distribute is eligible for expungement). The only other jurisdiction with comparable scope is Indiana, which has similar limitations on violent offenses and sex offenses, but places no limit on the types of drug convictions that may be expunged and does not bar expungement of crimes against minors. Minnesota allows expungement of a list of enumerated minor non-violent felony offenses, and only minor drug distribution offenses may be expunged (most possession-only offenses are eligible). Arkansas limits sealing to Level C and D felonies. Standards Under Louisiana's new law, expungement is mandatory if a person meets all of the eligibility requirements. This is also the case in Indiana for misdemeanors and minor felonies, though not for more serious crimes. Minnesota and Arkansas require a judicial finding based on a balancing test. In Minnesota, a felony can only be expunged if the court determines that the benefits of an expungement to the person seeking it are commensurate with concerns of the public and public safety, and with the burden on courts and public authorities to issue, enforce, and monitor an expungement order. In Arkansas, an order to seal records depends on a court's determination that it is "in the interest of justice" based on consideration of a menu of factors. The fact that an expungement is mandatory in Louisiana if the eligibility requirements are met also means that expungement may be granted without a hearing. A hearing must be held only if the prosecutor or law enforcement objects to the expungement request on grounds of ineligibility. A hearing is generally required in Minnesota and Arkansas. Use of expunged records Where Louisiana's law looks most different from the other three laws is in its relatively limited legal and practical effect insofar as employment and licensing is concerned. Expungement of a felony conviction record in Louisiana essentially does two things: 1) It prohibits the state from disclosing records to the general public (as in almost all other states, the record remains available to law enforcement, prosecutors and courts); and 2) it relieves a person of any obligation to disclose the record, or the fact of the record's expungement. The Louisiana law does not have a restorative effect on any rights lost (most basic civil rights are otherwise restored automatically upon completion of sentence), nor does it restrict the use of expunged records by licensing authorities or employers. It has no effect on sex offender registration and does not restore handgun rights (long gun rights are not lost) -- except, surprisingly, in domestic violence offenses. Though Louisiana's law generally prohibits the state from releasing expunged records to the public, the law provides some significant exceptions. Most notably, it specifically allows disclosure of expunged records to a number of specified licensing boards, including those governing health care, the insurance industry, social work, and the bar, all of which are authorized to consider criminal records when making licensing determinations. It also allows disclosure for the purpose of screening applicants for licenses and employment involving the care or supervision of children. Accordingly, while Louisiana's law permits individuals whose records have been expunged to deny that they have been convicted, the range of permissible disclosures by the state qualifies this benefit. The other three states also allow expunged records to be used as predicate offenses, and for sentencing and sex offender registration purposes. However, all three states restrict how an expunged record may be used by private and public entities in evaluating eligibility for employment, licensure, and other opportunities. Indiana's law is by far the most expansive, prohibiting employers, licensing boards, and anyone else from discriminating against a person based on a record that has been expunged, and even from asking about such a record. Minnesota takes a similar approach by prohibiting discrimination, but only as it applies to public employment and licensing (with a large and growing list of excepted employers and licensing boards). Under Arkansas's Criminal Offender Rehabilitation Act, a licensing board may not disqualify a person based on an "expunged" record -- though, since Arkansas' new law now styles what was once known as an "expungement" a "sealing," it is unclear what affect this provision currently has. Indiana and Minnesota additionally encourage hiring of those with expunged records by prohibiting admission of expunged convictions as evidence of negligence in negligent hiring actions. The Louisiana law contains no analogous provisions. Third party providers of records The Louisiana law does make some attempt attempt to addresses the problem posed by third party dissemination of expunged records, but it does so in a way that is likely to be ineffective in practice. The law prohibits private providers of criminal records (other than news organizations) from disseminating expunged records, but only if they have been put on notice by the subject of the expunged record. This notice must be sent by certified mail and contain a certified copy of the expungement order. Until a particular provider receives notice from the recipient of an expungement, the provider is entirely free (at least under state law) to disseminate the record to anyone, even if they have other notice it has been expunged. To ensure that expunged records do not reach a potential employer, a person would have to give notice to each and every private provider out there. This a practical impossibility, of course, but, even if it could be done, it would be ineffective because the only providers obligated by receiving notice are those that are not governed by the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Considering that a vast majority of private providers of criminal records are subject to FCRA, it is hard to see why this provision was included at all. The Indiana and Minnesota laws offer significantly greater protection against irresponsible private providers. Here again, Indiana's law is the stronger, placing a blanket prohibition on dissemination of expunged records by "criminal history providers." This prohibition is unqualified: Dissemination is prohibited whether the provider has notice of it or not, putting the onus on the provider rather the individual. The Minnesota law occupies a middle ground, prohibiting dissemination by a "business screening service" if the service has notice of the expungement from any source. Arkansas's law does not address the issue of third party providers of records. Conclusion Louisiana's new expungement law represents a significant and commendable move toward giving those with criminal records a chance to regain opportunities lost as a result of conviction. However, although it expands eligibility for expungment to a relatively large number of people, and makes relief mandatory upon a determination of eligibility, its benefits are limited by long waiting periods and limited legal effect. If Louisiana is serious about expanding employment opportunities to those with felony convictions, it would do well to enact measures limiting dissemination and use of expunged records by employers and other third parties, as Indiana, Minnesota, and (to a more limited extent) Arkansas have done. Until expungement in Louisiana is more than a mechanism to limit official disclosure of records, those who might otherwise be eligible to apply for it may wonder whether it is worth the trouble and expense. * Louisiana does have a quirky law from 1981 that permits the Bureau of Criminal Identification and Information to remove the records of anyone over the age of 60 "from active dissemination to eligible agencies" so long as the person hasn't been arrested for 15 years. The removal isn't mandatory, though, so it offers little comfort to anyone young or old.