Tag: Non-conviction records project

Survey of law enforcement access to sealed non-conviction records

As part of our non-conviction records project, we have researched what state laws provide on law enforcement agency access to and use of sealed or expunged non-conviction records for routine law enforcement purposes.  This issue is particularly salient in light of an ongoing lawsuit against the New York Police Department in which a New York state court found that the NYPD’s routine use and disclosure of sealed arrest information—without securing a court order—violates New York’s sealing statute.

Looking across the country, we found an almost even split on this issue: exactly half the states either do not allow law enforcement access to sealed records for routine law enforcement activity, or condition law enforcement access on a court order (as in New York) or formal written request.  Specifically, we identified 25 states and two territories that appear to limit law enforcement agency access to and/or use of non-conviction records, either absolutely (12 states and two territories), or without a court order (11 states) or formal written request to the state custodian of records for a specified purpose (two states).  The other 25 states, plus two territories, the District of Columbia and the Federal system, exempt law enforcement agencies generally from sealing or expungement laws, or in a few cases have no law authorizing sealing of non-conviction records (American Samoa, the Federal system, and Wisconsin).

Note a couple of things about the way we conducted this research.  First, our results apply only to records that do not result in a conviction (though in many states the answer is the same for records that do), and we classified them according to their apparent application to law enforcement operations (some states allow law enforcement agency access for employment and certification purposes).  There are a handful of states that bar law enforcement agency access but allow access by prosecutors, both generally (NC) and in specific situations (AR, KS), and we classified these as barring law enforcement access, because the possibility of police access to records through prosecutors is not the kind of unregulated direct access at issue in the New York litigation.

The second thing to note is that our results say nothing about how easy or hard it is to get a non-conviction record sealed or expunged, or who is eligible for this relief.  For example, of the states whose laws bar access, New York offers sealing of non-conviction records right at disposition as a routine matter, with the burden on the prosecutor to show why sealing isn’t appropriate (and it is a high bar).  Other states in the “no access” or “court order” categories (e.g. Virginia, Kentucky, West Virginia) require a defendant to file a separate civil petition after an eligibility waiting period, disqualify based on prior record, require a hearing at which the petitioner has the burden of showing why relief should be granted, and even impose civil filing fees.

Our classification tells a bit more about the scope or effect of sealing/expungement relief in each state more generally, since states that “delete” or “erase” non-conviction records are more likely to specifically bar law enforcement agency access than states that merely limit public access to the record.  But even states that provide some public access (e.g., by licensing boards) may also bar access for law enforcement functions (e.g., KS).  (Further information about the effect of sealing or expungement relief in each state may be found in the Restoration of Rights Project profiles.)

Our state-by-state research follows.

Read more

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

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

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

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

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

Iowa high court holds indigent attorney fees bar expungement

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

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

 

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

By Rob Poggenklass

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

Read more

NY judge rules police need court order to access sealed arrests

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

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

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

Read more

Administration wants federal job seekers to disclose participation in diversion

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

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

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

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

Read more

CCRC launches major study of non-conviction records

CCRC is pleased to announce that we are undertaking a major study of the public availability and use of non-conviction records – including arrests that are never charged, charges that are dismissed, deferred and diversionary dispositions, and acquittals.   Law enforcement agencies and courts frequently make these records available to the public allowing widespread dissemination on the internet, both directly and through private for-profit databases.  Their appearance in background checks can lead to significant discrimination against people who have never been convicted of a crime, and result unfairly in barriers to employment, housing, education, and many other opportunities.  Research has shown that limiting public access to these records through mechanisms like sealing and expungement is valuable in economic terms for those who receive this relief, and improvements in their economic status will in turn benefit their families and communities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more