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. I. NO ACCESS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES OR ACCESS ONLY WITH COURT ORDER OR FORMAL REQUEST (25 states, 2 territories) A. No authority for law enforcement to access sealed or expunged non-conviction records for regular law enforcement purposes (12 states, 2 territories): Arkansas:  Sealed non-conviction records accessible upon written request from a “criminal justice agency” only for employment with the agency, or a background check for polygraph or security license.  May also be disclosed to a court (“upon a showing of a subsequent adjudication of guilt” or “another good reason shown to be in the interests of justice”); to “a prosecuting attorney” (if accompanied by a statement that “the request is being made for a criminal justice purpose”); and to agencies engaged in licensing of health care professionals.  Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-1416. Connecticut:  “Whenever in any criminal case, on or after October 1, 1969, the accused, by a final judgment, is found not guilty of the charge or the charge is dismissed, all police and court records and records of any state’s attorney pertaining to such charge shall be erased upon the expiration of the time to file a writ of error or take an appeal, if an appeal is not taken, or upon final determination of the appeal sustaining a finding of not guilty or a dismissal, if an appeal is taken.”  Law does not provide for law enforcement access to erased records.  Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-142a(a); See also 54-142c(a). Indiana:  Does not allow information about non-conviction records that have been expunged and sealed to be “placed or retained in any state central repository for criminal history information or in any other alphabetically arranged criminal history information system maintained by a local, regional, or statewide law enforcement agency.”  Ind. Code § 35-38-9-1(h).  While “this chapter does not require any change or alteration in: (1) any internal record made by a law enforcement agency at the time of the arrest and not intended for release to the public,” § 35-38-9-1(f), we have been advised by the Marion County prosecutor’s office that the state police may destroy expunged and sealed records that did not lead to a conviction.  While the law is unclear, we nonetheless place Indiana in the “no access” category on the strength of the reasonably clear directive of § 35-38-9-1(h). Kansas:  “Whenever a person’s arrest records have been expunged as provided in this section, the custodian of the records of arrest, incarceration due to arrest or court proceedings related to the arrest, shall not disclose the arrest or any information related to the arrest, except as directed by the order of expungement or when requested by the person whose arrest record was expunged.”  Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-2410(h).  § 22-2410(c) lists a variety of employment and licensing scenarios in which disclosure may be “directed by the order of expungement” as well as a catch-all “in any other circumstances which the court deems appropriate.”  Disclosure also authorized to the state bureau of investigation for the central repository and the national instant criminal background check system for firearms.  See also §§ 21-6614(1)(6), (15) (expunged conviction records may be disclosed if requested by “a prosecutor, and such request is accompanied by a statement that the request is being made in conjunction with a prosecution of an offense that requires a prior conviction as one of the elements of such offense” or “a law enforcement agency and the request is accompanied by a statement that the request is being made to aid in determining eligibility for employment as a law enforcement officer.”). Kentucky:  “After the expungement, the proceedings in the matter shall be deemed never to have occurred. The court and other agencies shall delete or remove the records from their computer systems so that any official state-performed background check will indicate that the records do not exist. The court and other agencies shall reply to any inquiry that no record exists on the matter.”  Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 431.076(6). Michigan:  Michigan courts are authorized to seal the record of any case under Michigan Court Rule 8.119(I) for “good cause” shown, after considering the interests of the parties and the public.  Under Mich. Comp. Laws 780.623, records sealed under MCR 8.119(I) may be made available to courts and to law enforcement agencies only for specific purposes, including licensing and employment, but not for routine investigative or enforcement functions.  Arrest records are expunged or destroyed if: (1) arrest and release without charges; (2) finding of not guilty; (3) nolle prosequi; or (4) charges dismissed before trial.  Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 28.243(7), (8), (10).  It does not appear that such records are subsequently accessible by law enforcement.  See id. Mississippi:  “Upon entering an order of expunction under this section, a nonpublic record thereof shall be retained by the Mississippi Criminal Information Center solely for the purpose of determining whether, in subsequent proceedings, the person is a first offender.”  Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-71(3).  “The order of expunction shall not preclude a district attorney’s office from retaining a nonpublic record thereof for law enforcement purposes only.”  Id. North Carolina:  Under North Carolina law, expunged records are “deleted,” but the Administrative Office of the Courts maintains a confidential file on those records and makes them available for certain limited specified purposes.  N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-151(a).  While some expunged conviction records may be available to law enforcement for purposes of employment and certification, expunged non-conviction records may not be disclosed to law enforcement agencies under any circumstances.  Records of dismissed charges (but not acquittals) may be disclosed to prosecutors under § 15A-151.5. Puerto Rico:  Puerto Rico Police Department maintains records of convictions and open cases in a “Criminal Record Certificate” containing record of convictions and open cases.  P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 34, § 1725a.  Convictions may be “eliminated” upon motion from the certificate after a waiting period.  Cases that do not result in conviction appear not to be maintained. South Carolina:  If charges are dismissed or the person is found not guilty, all records “must be destroyed and no evidence of the record pertaining to the charge . . . may be retained by any municipal, county or state law enforcement agency.”  S.C. Code Ann. § 17-1-40(B)(1).  As amended in 2016, this section provides that records may be kept by law enforcement and prosecution agencies for three years and 120 days, or indefinitely in case of an on-going investigation, before destruction for administrative purposes.  “The information is not a public document and is exempt from disclosure, except by court order.”  The law does not specify what if any use may be made of these records in the period for which they remain available to law enforcement, but we include it in this category because of the evident intent of the more general provision. Texas:  Pursuant to the expunction procedure set forth in 55.02, § 3(a), the court shall order “any state agency that sent information concerning the arrest to a central federal depository to request the depository to return all records and files subject to the order of expunction;” once expunged, the law prohibits the “release, maintenance, dissemination, or use of the expunged records and files for any purpose.”  Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 55.03(1). Vermont:  “Upon entry of an expungement order, the order shall be legally effective immediately and the person whose record is expunged shall be treated in all respects as if he or she had never been arrested, convicted, or sentenced for the offense. The court shall issue an order to expunge all records and files related to the arrest, citation, investigation, charge, adjudication of guilt, criminal proceedings, and probation related to the sentence . . . .  The court shall provide notice of the expungement to the respondent, Vermont Crime Information Center (VCIC), the arresting agency, and any other entity that may have a record related to the order to expunge.”  13 V.S.A. § 7606(a). Virginia:  “If the court finds that the continued existence and possible dissemination of information relating to the arrest of the petitioner causes or may cause circumstances which constitute a manifest injustice to the petitioner, it shall enter an order requiring the expungement of the police and court records, including electronic records, relating to the charge.”  Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-392.2. Virgin Islands:  Expungement means that a person will be treated “as not having been or arrested except for the keeping of confidentiality records” [sic].  Court may order the records disclosed to a court in connection with sentencing, or “to an agency of the territorial or federal government that is considering the person for a position.”  5 V.I. Code §§ 3738, 3739. B. Court order required for law enforcement access to sealed or expunged records (11 states, including New York): Idaho requires a court order for disclosure of sealed court records, I.C.A.R. 32(i); no provision appears to authorize access to expunged criminal history records. Maryland only allows access to expunged records with a court order, after notice, a hearing, and the showing of good cause; or an ex parte order, on a verified petition filed by a State’s Attorney alleging that the record is needed by law enforcement for a pending criminal investigation and “the investigation will be jeopardized or life or property will be endangered without immediate access to the expunged record.”  Md. Code Ann., Crim. Proc. § 10-108. Minnesota:  When a criminal justice agency seeks access to a record that was sealed under section 02, subdivision 3, paragraph (a), clause (1), after an acquittal or a court order dismissing for lack of probable cause, for purposes of a criminal investigation, prosecution, or sentencing, the requesting agency must obtain an ex parte court order after stating a good-faith basis to believe that opening the record may lead to relevant information.  Minn. Stat. § 609A.03(2).  An expunged record of a conviction may be opened for purposes of evaluating a prospective employee in a criminal justice agency without a court order.  § 609A.03(2). Montana:  Criminal courts are prohibited from disseminating records made confident by law, under Mont. Code Ann. § 44-5-303(1) (“dissemination of confidential criminal justice information is restricted to criminal justice agencies, to those authorized by law to receive it, and to those authorized to receive it by a district court upon a written finding that the demands of individual privacy do not clearly exceed the merits of public disclosure”). Nevada:  The court may order sealed all records of the arrest and of the proceedings leading to the acquittal, declination or dismissal which are in the custody of any agency of criminal justice or any public or private company, agency, official or other custodian of records in the State of Nevada.   Nev. Rev. Stat. § 179.255.  If a person has been arrested, the charges have been dismissed and the records of the arrest have been sealed, the court may order the inspection of the records by a prosecuting attorney upon a showing that as a result of newly discovered evidence, the person has been arrested for the same or a similar offense and that there is sufficient evidence reasonably to conclude that the person will stand trial for the offense.  § 179.295. New Jersey:  Expunged records shall be provided to any judge, county prosecutor, probation department or the Attorney General when same are requested for use in conjunction with a bail hearing or for the preparation of a presentence report or for purpose of sentencing.  N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:52-21.  Inspection of the files and records, or release of the information contained therein, which are the subject of an order of expungement, or sealing under prior law, may be permitted by the Superior Court upon motion for good cause shown and compelling need based on specific facts.  § 2C:52-19. New York:  Courts, prosecutors, and law enforcement agencies must “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,” without a court order. 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.  N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law §§ 160.50 and 160.55. Oregon:  Upon motion of any prosecutor or defendant in a case involving records sealed under this section, supported by affidavit showing good cause, the court with jurisdiction may order the reopening and disclosure of any records sealed under this section for the limited purpose of assisting the investigation of the movant.  However, such an order has no other effect on the orders setting aside the conviction or the arrest, citation or charge record.  ORS 137.225(11) Utah:  “The bureau shall keep, index, and maintain all expunged records of arrests and convictions . . . . Employees of the bureau may not divulge any information contained in its index to any person or agency without a court order unless specifically authorized by statute . . . . If, after obtaining an expungement, the petitioner is charged with a felony, the state may petition the court to open the expunged records upon a showing of good cause . . . . For judicial sentencing, a court may order any records expunged under this chapter or Section 77-27-5.1 to be opened and admitted into evidence.”  Utah Code Ann. § 77-40-109(1), (4), (5). Washington only allows access to sealed court records after entry of a court order allowing access or if the records have been ordered unsealed pursuant to Washington State Court General Rule 15, GR 15(e); criminal justice records subject to deletion are presumably destroyed and thus inaccessible.  Wash. Rev. Code § 10.97.060. West Virginia allows inspection of the sealed records in the court’s possession “upon a petition filed by a prosecuting attorney that inspection and possible use of the records in question are necessary to the investigation or prosecution of a crime in this state or another jurisdiction. If the court finds that the interests of justice will be served by granting the petition, it may be granted.”  W. Va. Code § 61-11-25. C. Law enforcement must file formal written request and specify reasons (2 states): Louisiana: Expunged records may be made available to “a member of a law enforcement or criminal justice agency or prosecutor who shall request that information in writing, certifying that the request is for the purpose of investigating, prosecuting, or enforcing criminal law, for the purpose of any other statutorily defined law enforcement or administrative duties, or for the purposes of the requirements of sex offender registration and notification.”  La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 973). Rhode Island: Any custodian of expunged records shall not disclose the existence of the records upon inquiry from any source unless the inquiry is that of any law enforcement agency “when the nature and character of the offense with which an individual is to be charged would be affected by virtue of the person having been previously convicted of the same offense.”  “The custodian of any records which have been expunged pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall only release or allow access to those records for the purposes specified in subsections (b) or (c) [above] of this section or by order of a court.”  R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 12-1.3-4 (c) and (d). II. LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES HAVE ACCESS TO SEALED NON-CONVICTION RECORDS OR NO SEALING IS AUTHORIZED (25 states, 2 territories, D.C. and the Federal system) American Samoa:  Does not provide record-closing relief to non-conviction records. Alabama:  Expunged non-conviction records accessible to criminal justice agencies “upon acknowledgement of an investigation or other criminal matter involving the person related to the expungement.”  Ala. Code § 15-27-7(a). Alaska:  Non-conviction criminal justice records that are not generally releasable to the public “may be provided to a criminal justice agency for a criminal justice activity.”  Alaska Stat. 12.62.160(b)(4).  Sealed records may be provided “when necessary to prevent imminent harm to a person…[, or] for a use authorized by statute or court order.”  § 12.62.180. Arizona:  Cleared records are not “expunged or hidden from law enforcement officials.”  State v. Mohajerin, 226 Ariz. 103 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). California:  A criminal justice agency may continue “in the regular course of its duties, to access, furnish to other criminal justice agencies, and use, including, but not limited to, by discussing in open court and in unsealed court filings, sealed arrests, sealed arrest records, sealed police investigative reports, sealed court records, and information relating to sealed arrests, to the same extent that would have been permitted for a criminal justice agency if the arrest had not been sealed.”  Cal. Penal Code § 851.92(b)(6). Colorado:  Sealed arrest records may be shared between criminal justice agencies.  Col. Rev. Stat. § 24-72-702(4)(e). Delaware:  Expunged records may be disclosed to law enforcement officers acting in the lawful performance of their duties in investigating criminal activity where the person whose record was expunged is a suspect of a felony or for an application to be an employee of a law-enforcement agency by the person whose record was expunged.  Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 4376(a). District of Columbia:  Records sealed on grounds of actual innocence may be opened only upon court order based on a showing of compelling need or by the person who is the subject of the records, D.C. Code § 16-806(a); all other sealed records may be made available to a prosecutor or law enforcement agency for any lawful purpose.  § 16-806(b) (provides examples of lawful purposes). Federal:  Makes no provision for sealing or expunging non-conviction records. Florida:  Sealed and expunged records available to criminal justice agencies for criminal justice purposes or criminal justice employment purposes.  Fla. Stat. §§ 943.059(4), 943.0585(4). Georgia:  Restricted criminal history record information is available to “criminal justice agencies for law enforcement or criminal investigative purposes or to criminal justice agencies for purposes of employment in accordance with procedures established by the [Georgia Crime Information Center]),” and sealed court records may be accessed by criminal justice agencies.  Ga. Code Ann. § 35-3-37. Guam:  Sealed records accessible to law enforcement agencies.  8 Guam Code Ann. § 11.10. Hawaii:  Expunged records may be divulged upon inquiry by a state or federal agency considering the subject for a position “immediately and directly affecting the national or state security” or a law enforcement agency acting within the scope of their duties.  Haw. Rev. Stat. § 831-3.2(d). Illinois:  “The Department of State Police shall retain records sealed under subsection (c) or (e-5) of Section 5.2 or impounded [expunged] under subparagraph (B) or (B-5) of paragraph (9) of subsection (d) of Section 5.2 and shall release them only as authorized by this Act. . . . Notwithstanding the foregoing, all sealed or impounded records are subject to inspection and use by the court and inspection and use by law enforcement agencies and State’s Attorneys or other prosecutors in carrying out the duties of their offices.”  20 ILCS 2630/13. Iowa:  Criminal history records are generally public, Iowa Code § 22(7), except that court records of cases where judgment deferred are confidential except to county attorneys, courts, the department of public safety, and the department of corrections upon request.  § 907.4. Maine:  Non-conviction records are not generally available to the public after one year, so long as no prosecution is pending and a person is not a fugitive from justice.  Confidential records may be disclosed to criminal justice agencies—or their contractors—for criminal justice purposes, criminal justice employment, and certain research and statistical purposes.  Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 16, § 703(2); 705. Massachusetts:   Criminal justice agencies “shall have immediate access to, and be permitted to use as necessary for the performance of their criminal justice duties, any sealed criminal offender record information as defined in section 167 of chapter 6 and any sealed information concerning criminal offenses or acts of delinquency committed by any person before he attained the age of 17.”  Mass. Gen. Law ch. 276, 100D. Missouri:  Mo. Rev. Stat. § 610.105 authorizes automatic “closure” of records in all cases disposed of favorably to the defendant (nolle prossed, acquitted, dismissed), or where imposition of sentence is suspended pursuant to § 557.011.2(3), upon conclusion of the case, “except that the court’s judgment or order or the final action taken by the prosecutor in such matters may be accessed.”  In addition, the complete record remains available to law enforcement and other governmental entities (e.g., department of revenue for driver license administration and the department of health and senior services facilities for licensing decisions).  Mo. Rev. Stat. § 610.120. Nebraska:  Court, “upon acquittal or entry of an order dismissing a case,” sends notice to state records repository, law enforcement agencies and city and county attorneys, that any information pertaining to the case should be “sealed” and not disseminated to persons other than criminal justice agencies.  Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3523(7). New Hampshire: Annulled records are only available to the person receiving the annulment and to law enforcement.  N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 651:5(XI)(c). New Mexico:  Section 5D of CREA (2019), effective January 1, 2020, provides that upon granting an order of expungement, “the court shall cause a copy of the order to be delivered to all relevant law enforcement agencies and courts.  The order shall prohibit all relevant law enforcement agencies and courts from releasing copies of the records to any person, except upon order of the court.”  Presumably they can use it for their own purposes, but the statute is not explicit on this issue. North Dakota:  Bureau of criminal investigation may disclose sealed information to 1) “a criminal justice agency that requests the information for its functions as a criminal justice agency or for use in hiring or retaining its employees”; 2) “a court, on request, to aid in a decision concerning sentence, probation, release pending trial or appeal, or a name change petition”; 3) “[p]ursuant to a judicial, legislative, or administrative agency subpoena issued in this state; or 4) as otherwise provided by law.  N.D. Cent. Code § 12-60-16.5. Ohio:  Sealed records may also be accessed by law enforcement agencies, by other state agencies in connection with applications for certain state employment, and for purposes of a variety of other employments set forth in the statute governing the Bureau of Criminal Identification (state repository of criminal records), including licensed facilities working with vulnerable populations, schools, home health agencies and financial institutions.  See Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.32(D); 109.57 et seq.  Oklahoma:  Expungement is available to those charged with a felony or misdemeanor where the charge was dismissed, there are no other pending charges, the person has never been convicted of a felony, and the statute of limitations has expired on the charges or the prosecuting authority has confirmed that it does not intend to re-file charges.  Okla. Stat. § 18(A)(7).  Expungement means “the sealing of criminal records, as well as any public civil record, involving actions brought by and against the State of Oklahoma arising from the same arrest, transaction or occurrence.”  22 Okla. Stat Ann. § 18(B). Expunged conviction records (including those for pardoned offenses) and records expunged following successful completion of probation remain available to law enforcement and may be used in subsequent prosecutions.  § 18(D).  However, any record that has been sealed may be ordered “obliterated or destroyed” after an additional 10 years.  § 19(K). Pennsylvania:  Expungement is available from the court for non-conviction records where no disposition is indicated after 18 months, or otherwise where the court orders it.  “Such information shall be made available to any court or law enforcement agency upon request, but may be used solely for the purpose of determining subsequent eligibility for diversion programs, probation, and expungement, and for identifying persons in criminal investigations.”  18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9122(c).  Records sealed under an “order for limited access” under the Clean Slate Act are not destroyed and may “be disseminated to a criminal justice agency or as provided in section 9121(b.1) and (b.2)” (agencies such as the Department of Human Services for child protective services uses, and to state professional and occupational licensing agencies).  18  Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9122.1. South Dakota:  “Any order of expungement shall be reported to the Division of Criminal Investigation pursuant to chapters 23-5 and 23-6.  The court shall forward a nonpublic record of disposition to the Division of Criminal Investigation which shall be retained solely for use by law enforcement agencies, prosecuting attorneys, and courts in sentencing the defendant or arrested person for subsequent offenses.”  S.D. Codified Laws § 23A-3-31. Tennessee:  Law enforcement records, including records of district attorneys, are excluded from the definition of “public records” destroyed by an expungement order, as are court records and appellate opinions. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-32-101(b)(1). Wisconsin:  Does not provide for sealing of non-conviction records. Wyoming:  Court may expunge non-conviction records 180 days after dismissal of the proceedings, if no charges are pending.  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-13-1401.  Court sends copy of its order to division of criminal justice, which must maintain them in a manner “reasonably tailored to ensure that the record will not be available for dissemination purposes other than to a criminal justice agency of any state or a federal criminal justice agency, to be used solely for criminal justice purposes.”  Wyo. Stat. § 7-13-1401(j).  Expungement shall not include investigatory files of any local, state or federal criminal justice agency, where those files are being used solely for criminal justice purposes.  Id.   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. Read more

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). Jane Doe requested expungement nine years after her case was dismissed, and she still owed the state $550.38 in court-appointed attorney fees.  (Court-appointed attorneys are reimbursed by the state regardless of whether the defendant can pay.)  In a motion to expunge her case, Iowa Legal Aid argued that the statute’s requirement, that Doe repay her attorney fees, violated her rights under the equal protection clauses of the Iowa and United States Constitutions.  Doe’s attorneys cited James v. Strange, a 1972 case in which the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that the State of Kansas, when attempting to collect court-appointed attorney fees, could not treat indigent defendants more harshly than other civil judgment debtors (most notably, by allowing wage garnishment of indigent defendants but not of other civil judgment debtors).  Relying on Strange, Doe’s attorneys argued “that the State may not impose unduly harsh or discriminatory terms on indigent defendants,” for the purposes of expungement, “merely because they owe attorney fees to the State instead of to a private attorney.”  Therefore, Iowa Legal Aid argued that repayment of the court-appointed attorney fee debt is an unconstitutional barrier to expungement: “Equal protection demands that a State cannot treat a poor person differently because her debt is to the State, rather than to a private creditor.” The court agreed with Iowa Legal Aid on the first two steps of the equal protection analysis: first, that the class of people (including Doe) who are unable to expunge their records due to court-appointed attorney fees are similarly situated to individuals who owe fees to a private attorney; and second, that Doe had properly alleged disparate treatment between these two groups by pointing out that defendants who owe fees to privately-retained lawyers may seek expungement, but defendants who owe fees due to court-appointed lawyers may not seek expungement. Ruling on the key question, the four-justice majority held that the law’s classification survives constitutional scrutiny, concluding that “section 901C.2 survives rational basis review under both the Iowa and Federal Constitutions” because the state has a legitimate purpose “to encourage payment of court debt.”  The majority reiterated an earlier holding that there is no constitutional right to expungement, and that the legislature could have provided a mechanism for waiving such fees in the statute but chose not to. However, in reaching this conclusion, the majority noted out that “the relief [Doe] seeks in her facial challenge is not limited to presently indigent persons seeking expungement, but rather extends to anyone whose court debt preventing expungement consists of court-appointed attorney fees.”  In other words, the majority opinion leaves open the possibility of a future challenge to the law on behalf of persons who are still indigent at the time of expungement—and still unable to pay court-appointed attorney fees. Three justices wrote two separate dissents.  Two justices would have remanded the case to the district court for a consideration of Doe’s reasonable ability to pay the attorney fees. One justice would have found the law violates equal protection as applied to Doe because it “irrationally discriminates” between debts owed to court-appointed counsel and debts owed to private counsel. Rob Poggenklass is a senior staff attorney at Iowa Legal Aid.  A graduate of Cornell College and William & Mary Law School, he previously worked as a public defender in Newport News, VA, and on criminal justice policy at the ACLU of Virginia.  He teaches in the paralegal program at Des Moines Area Community College. This is the fourth post in a series for CCRC’s non-conviction records project, a study of the public availability and use of non-conviction records – including arrests that are never charged, charges that are dismissed, deferred dispositions, and acquittals. 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. In moving to dismiss the lawsuit, the NYPD urged the court to find lawful its own internal use of the sealed information.  It did not contest the suit’s claims relating to what the New York court described as its “routine and unlawful” disclosure of sealed information to media and other agencies. The court found the sealing statute prohibits the NYPD from using sealed records without a court order for any purpose.  It rejected the NYPD’s argument that the statute allows its personnel to use sealed arrests however they want within the Department.  In so doing, the court looked to the plain text of the statute, which provides that “law enforcement agencies” can access and use sealed information only if they secure a court order after demonstrating that “justice requires that such records be made available.”  The court also dismissed a due process claim, holding that the sealing statute does not implicate a right to due process here.  The case will now proceed to discovery. This is the third post in a series for CCRC’s non-conviction records project, a study of the public availability and use of non-conviction records – including arrests that are never charged, charges that are dismissed, deferred dispositions, and acquittals. 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. This move is a departure from the approach of the previous administration.  In 2015, President Obama issued an executive order asking OPM to “take action where it can by modifying its rules to delay inquiries into criminal history until later in the hiring process” to “better ensure that applicants from all segments of society, including those with prior criminal histories, receive a fair opportunity to compete for Federal employment.”  At the time, CCRC thought this meant “at a minimum that OPM should eliminate the criminal history question on its ‘Declaration for Federal Employment’ form.”  Instead, OPM issued regulations requiring agencies not to inquiry about an applicant’s criminal or credit background in the manner asked on the “Declaration for Federal Employment” form until after a conditional offer is made (unless an exception is granted based on an agency’s need to obtain information earlier).  See 5 C.F.R. §§ 330.1300; 731.103. Under the current administration, OPM is looking to expand the “Declaration for Federal Employment” form’s criminal history question by making the following changes.  Currently, the question reads: During the last 7 years, have you been convicted, been imprisoned, been on probation, or been on parole? (Includes felonies, firearms or explosives violations, misdemeanors, and all other offenses.) If “YES,” use item 16 to provide the date, an explanation of the violation, place of occurrence, and the name and address of the police department or court involved. Under the new rule, this question would read as follows: During the last 7 years, have you: Been convicted of any crime (Include misdemeanors, felonies, firearms or explosives violations, domestic violence, alcohol, drugs, and all other crimes or offenses); Been subject to judge or court specified conditions requiring satisfactory completion before a criminal charge has been or will be dismissed; Served time in jail or prison as a result of being convicted of a crime; or Been on probation or parole? If “YES,” use item 16 to provide the date, explanation of the violation/charge, place of occurrence, and the name and address of the police and court involved. The White House and the federal personnel office did not comment regarding the reason for this change, according to Justin George of the Marshall Project.  OPM writes in its notice that the proposed change “closes a gap for those who participate in or successfully complete this type of alternative disposition and may not have to answer affirmatively to the current question and report the details of the offense.”  But closing this gap, “defeats the purpose of diversion,” as ACLU staff attorney Somil Trivedi told the Marshall Project, and potentially subverts the intention of judges and prosecutors who have specifically authorized or sought a non-conviction disposition so that a defendant may avoid the dire collateral consequences of a conviction. In addition to avoiding a conviction record, diversionary dispositions are often eligible for sealing or expungement upon successful completion of conditions, and it isn’t clear whether the OPM regulation would require disclosure of a diversionary record even in these circumstances. The proposed new OPM requirement would be flatly inconsistent with national efforts to promote rehabilitation and reintegration.  Public comments may be submitted by April 23, 2019. This is the second post in a series for our non-conviction records project, a study of the public availability and use of non-conviction records – including arrests that are never charged, charges that are dismissed, deferred dispositions, and acquittals. Read more