Restoration of Rights Project – Washington Profile
Guide to restoration of rights, pardon, sealing & expungement following a Washington criminal conviction
Washington Defender Association (2013)
Beyond Juvenile Court: Long-term Impact of a Juvenile Record
Washington Defender Association (2011)
* Be sure to check for changes in the relevant laws since this resource is fairly dated
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 Arizona also repealed a law authorizing suspension of driver’s licenses for failure to pay and authorized its courts to redesignate some felonies as misdemeanors.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.
- 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.
- Momentum grows to restore voting rights to people with a felony (2/3/2021) - Our new report on 2020 legislative reforms shows continued progress in state efforts to expand voting rights for people with a felony conviction. Despite a courtroom setback at the Eleventh Circuit, where a federal appeals court ruled that Florida's landmark 2018 felony re-enfranchisement initiative does not restore the vote to people who owe court debt, two additional states and D.C. took major actions to restore voting rights to people convicted of a felony. Already in 2021, an impressive 19 states are considering bills to ease or eliminate prohibitions on voting based on a past conviction. In 2020, California restored the vote to people on parole, via a ballot initiative amending the state constitution. Iowa's governor issued an executive order restoring voting rights to people convicted of most felonies after completion of incarceration and supervision. And the District of Columbia repealed felony disenfranchisement altogether so that even people in prison may vote. Since 2016, 19 states have taken steps to restore the right to vote for people with a felony and expand awareness about eligibility. In 2021, at least 19 state legislatures are considering bills that would expand the franchise to those with a conviction: 5 states are considering measures to amend their constitutions or statutes to eliminate felony disenfranchisement entirely (Nebraska, Georgia, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Virginia). They would join Maine, Vermont, and D.C., as jurisdictions that have fully abandoned felony disenfranchisement. Connecticut also has a proposed bill that to eliminate disenfranchisement for certain felony offenses and restore the vote after incarceration for the others. 10 states are considering bills to re-enfranchise individuals not presently incarcerated for a felony conviction: Alabama, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Washington, Texas, and Virginia (Alabama's bill would do so 5 years after release). The Washington measure is sponsored by newly elected Rep. Tarra Simmons, believed to be the first Washington state lawmaker formerly convicted of felony. The only 4 states remaining without a statutory mechanism for re-enfranchisement (Kentucky, Iowa, Mississippi, Virginia) are considering measures to restore the vote upon completion of incarceration and supervision, or earlier, for a disqualifying offense (in the case of Mississippi, after incarceration and parole only; in the case of Iowa, 5 years after completion of incarceration and supervision; Virginia has proposals to eliminate disenfranchisement completely or restore the vote upon release). These four states currently make re-enfranchisement wholly dependent upon discretionary gubernatorial action (or in Mississippi, discretionary legislative action). In addition, Tennessee has a pending bill that would remove requirements that a person has paid all restitution and court costs, and be current on child support, before voting rights may be restored. Maryland and Missouri are considering bills to facilitate voting in jails for eligible individuals, and Maryland has another bill to require individuals released from correctional facilities and/or on community supervision to be informed that they are eligible to vote. Nebraska also has a pending bill to remove the two-year waiting period after completion of a felony sentence for voting rights restoration. Our full report on 2020 criminal record reforms is available here. For an overview of loss and restoration of voting rights, see our Sept. 2020 national survey and our 50-state comparison chart. In addition, our Nov. 2020 report documents which states treat unpaid court debt as a barrier to regaining the vote.
- First crop of restoration laws enacted in 2018 (3/30/2018) - In 2017, state legislatures produced a bumper crop of laws restoring rights and opportunities, with 24 separate states enacting new legal mechanisms to facilitate reentry and reintegration. Based on pending bills and laws already enacted this year, 2018 promises to be similarly productive. In March, the governors of Florida, Utah and Washington all signed into law new measures expanding their existing restoration schemes. Washington enacted a ban-the-box law applicable to both public and private employment, and both Florida and Utah expanded their laws authorizing expungement of non-conviction records. These new authorities are described in the post that follows, and can be seen in the context of related laws in the state profiles in the Restoration of Rights Project. While none of these first enactments of 2018 is particularly remarkable standing alone, they deserve mention as harbingers of things to come. More than thirty additional states have restoration bills pending, and half a dozen of these are well along in the enactment process. We will be tracking restoration bills through the year, and will report periodically in this space - particularly when a significant new law is enacted. We also hope to produce in 2018 another annual report on Second Chance Laws enacted during the year, as resources permit. Washington - Ban-the-box applicable to public and private employment In March 13, 2018, Governor Inslee signed into law HR 1298, prohibiting public and private employers from inquiring about criminal record until after a determination that the person is otherwise qualified for the position. The new section of Title 49 (Labor Code) will not apply to employers required or permitted by law to conduct background checks, including financial institutions, to employers of vulnerable populations, or to non-employee volunteers. The new ban-the-box provision supplements existing provisions of Washington law that permit employers and licensing agencies to consider a conviction record only if within the last 10 years and then only the crime “directly relates” to the employment or license sought. In addition, court-issued Certificates of Restoration of Opportunity (CROP) prohibit employers and licensing agencies from disqualifying individuals based on criminal conviction, and protect against negligent hiring liability. Washington's laws regulating consideration of conviction in employment and licensing are set forth in the profile from the Restoration of Rights Project. Florida – Acquittals now eligible for immediate expungement HB 1065, signed into law 3/27/18, expands eligibility for immediate court-ordered "expunction" (destruction) to cases where a person has been acquitted by a judge, or has had a verdict of not guilty rendered by a judge or jury, by-passing the requirement under existing law that such a record must first be sealed for 10 years. Under existing law, immediate expunction is available only if all charges are dismissed before trial. Other existing eligibility requirements remain in place: only those who have had no prior convictions or expungements are eligible, and those charged with violent or sex offenses are ineligible. These changes are effective October 1, 2018. Florida's scheme for sealing and expungement is set forth in the RRP profile. Utah - Expansion of authority to expunge non-conviction records. Under Utah law in effect prior to March 19, 2018, a person was able to apply for expungement of arrest or other non-conviction records only if no charges were filed or charges were dismissed with prejudice. SB 62 as enacted now authorizes courts to expunge records where the entire case is dismissed without prejudice or without condition as long as (1) the prosecutor consents in writing to the issuance of a certificate of eligibility OR (2) at least 180 days have passed since the date of dismissal. Under the new authority, a court is required to issue an order of expungement if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the prosecutor provided written consent and has not filed and does not intend to refile related charges. A person seeking expungement may reapply for a certificate of eligibility if the court denies the original petition based on the prosecutor’s intent to refile charges and charges are not refiled within 180 days of the date the court denies the original petition. Requires the prosecutor opposing expungement of a case dismissed without prejudice or without condition to have a good faith basis for the intention to refile the case. Clarifies that the Department of Public Safety is prohibited from counting pending or previous infractions, traffic offenses, or minor regulatory offenses when determining whether to grant a certificate of eligibility for expungement; that only fines and interest ordered by the court related to the conviction for which expungement is sought must be paid in full before expungement may be ordered; and, that fines or fees arising from pending or previous infractions, traffic offenses, or minor regulatory offenses are not counted when determining expungement eligibility. Utah's scheme for sealing and expungement is set forth in the RRP profile.
- 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<<
- Washington enacts Certificate of Restoration of Opportunity (7/6/2016) - Washington State courts are now authorized to grant certain individuals a Certificate of Restoration of Opportunity (CROP), which prohibits many state licensing entities from disqualifying the holder solely based on his or her criminal history. A CROP also protects employers and housing providers from liability for negligent hiring and renting. The new certificate authority was created by HB 1533, which was signed by Governor Jay Inslee on March 31 and took effect last month. In light of the trend toward giving courts responsibility for restoring legal rights and certifying rehabilitation, we took a closer look at who is eligible for this newest judicial certificate and the benefits it confers. Eligibility A CROP is available to individuals convicted of a misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor, or less-serious felony (or adjudicated in juvenile court for equivalent offenses) so long as certain eligibility requirements are met. To be eligible, a person must be “in compliance with or have completed all sentencing requirements imposed by a court,” must have no pending charges, and must not have been arrested for or convicted of a new crime. Persons convicted at any time of a Class A felony, certain sex offenses, extortion, drive-by shooting, vehicular assault, or luring are ineligible, as are registered sex offenders. Waiting periods apply and depend on the offense and sentence: 1 year from sentencing – misdemeanor/gross misdemeanor (probation/noncustodial sentence) 18 months from release – misdemeanor/gross misdemeanor (sentence of confinement) 2 years from sentencing (probation/noncustodial sentence) or release (sentence of confinement) – Class B/C felony 5 years from sentencing (probation/noncustodial sentence) or release (sentence of confinement) – violent offense under Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.030 Effect With a number of exceptions, “no state, county, or municipal department, board, officer, or agency . . . may disqualify a qualified applicant, solely based on the applicant’s criminal history, if the qualified applicant has obtained a [CROP]….” Excepted professions for which a CROP does not limit the ability of an entity to disqualify an applicant include: accountants, assisted living facility employees, nurses and physicians, private investigators, teachers, security guards, vulnerable adult care providers, and law enforcement. For otherwise unspecified professions and businesses that involve unsupervised contact with vulnerable adults, children, or disabled individuals, a licensing entity may only disqualify an applicant based solely upon criminal history after reviewing “relevant factors, including the nature and seriousness of the offense, time that has passed since conviction, changed circumstances since the offense occurred, and the nature of the employment or license sought.” Employers and housing providers are not required to consider a CROP in making hiring or rental decisions, but if an employer/provider does consider a CROP, then evidence of the employee or renter’s crimes may not be entered into evidence in any action against the employer or provider for negligent or intentionally tortious conduct. Procedure & criteria Applications may be filed either with the sentencing court or the superior court in the applicant’s county of residence. If filed in the county of residence, the court may decline to consider the application, and it must dismiss the application if the person does not meet the eligibility standards. In either case, dismissal in the county of residence is without prejudice, and the application may be refiled with the sentencing court, which must consider the application. Applicants must give notice to the prosecutor in the county where the certificate is sought and to the prosecutors in any county where a person has been sentenced in the last 5 years. Notwithstanding the exception for dismissal in the court of the county of residence, the court must grant a certificate if the applicant meets the eligibility criteria described above. However, the court has discretion to determine whether the certificate applies to all past criminal history or only the convictions in the court’s jurisdiction. A hearing on the application is not required. CROP grants are transmitted to the Washington state patrol identification section, which must update its criminal history records to reflect the CROP. § 3(9). A CROP has no other effect on court or law enforcement records. § 3(1)(c). More information on Washington relief mechanisms is available in the state's guide to restoration of rights, pardon, sealing & expungement here. For information on similar laws in other states, see our 50-state comparison on the consideration of criminal records in licensing and employment here.