Tag: Pennsylvania

New research report: Four Years of Second Chance Reforms, 2013-2016

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<<       Read more

Expungement in Pennsylvania explained

Pennsylvania has been active in recent years in expanding its judicial relief mechanisms, though it still has a long way to go to catch up to states like Kentucky, Missouri, and New Jersey, which have in the past 12 months extended their expungement laws to some felonies and/or reduced waiting periods.  No one has been more active and effective in the effort to increase the availability of “clean slate” judicial remedies than Sharon Dietrich, Litigation Director for Community Legal Services of Philadelphia.   Sharon has written a comprehensive guide to existing authorities on expungement and sealing in her state, which also discusses pending bills that would extend these laws.  The abstract follows: Over the last few decades, the collateral consequences for the estimated 3.8 million Pennsylvanians with criminal records have increased exponentially because of legislative action and ubiquitous background screening. Many people with criminal records struggle with these barriers years after having last encountered the criminal justice system. Their most effective remedy is to have their record cleared. Until recently, Pennsylvania’s only method of record clearing was expungement, which is limited primarily to cases with non-conviction dispositions. The only broad category of convictions that can be expunged prior to November 14, 2016, are summary offenses, after five years. Pennsylvania’s record-clearing scheme changed in February 2016, with the passage of Act 5 of 2016. Act 5 introduces orders for limited access (often known informally as “sealing”). These new orders allow cases to remain accessible to criminal justice agencies and occupational licensing boards, but to no one else. Act 5 permits some second degree, third degree and ungraded misdemeanor convictions to be sealed after 10 years free of arrest or prosecution, although exceptions written into the law will disqualify many cases. By allowing some misdemeanors to be sealed, Act 5 moves Pennsylvania into the mainstream of the record-clearing schemes of the 50 states. However, around half of the states allow more extensive expungement or sealing, with eleven states allowing many felonies to be cleared. Pennsylvania could take a significant step forward by adopting “Clean Slate” legislation now pending in the General Assembly, 5 which would provide automatic sealing of misdemeanors, summary offenses and non-convictions after certain waiting periods. A 50-state survey of existing expungement and sealing laws is available here, with additional details on each state’s laws here. Read more

New Yorker comments on collateral consequences

Lincoln Caplan writes in this week’s New Yorker about Judge Frederic Block’s decision last week to reduce a woman’s prison sentence because of the life-altering collateral penalties she faced on account of her drug conviction.  After describing the facts of the case and the judge’s reasoning, Caplan concludes with the following comments about what Jeremy Travis has called “invisible ingredients in the legislative menu of criminal sanctions”: The main conclusion of the judge’s opinion is that, while the law allowed him to take account of the civil penalties when he sentenced her, there was nothing he could do to protect her from them. He joined criminal-justice experts in encouraging Congress and state legislatures “to determine whether the plethora of post-sentence punishments imposed upon felons is truly warranted,” and suggested that they do the country “more harm than good.” He didn’t say so, but for many legislatures that would mean carefully assessing these punishments for the first time. As the criminal-justice scholar Jeremy Travis wrote, in 2002, legislatures have often adopted collateral consequences in unaccountable ways: “as riders to other, major pieces of legislation,” which are “given scant attention.” They are, Travis said, “invisible ingredients in the legislative menu of criminal sanctions.” The judge made clear why the severity of collateral consequences—authorizing discrimination in education, employment, housing, and many other basic elements of American life—means that anyone convicted of a felony is likely to face an arduous future. This predicament has been called modern civil death, social exclusion, and internal exile. Whatever it is called, its vast array of penalties kicks in automatically with a conviction, defying the supposedly bedrock principle of American law that the punishment must fit the crime. One of the most significant things about Mr. Caplan’s comments is that they make clear he believes collateral consequences are “punishment,” not “regulation,” and should be treated as such.  Courts are beginning to regard them as such as well for purposes of applying constitutional principles.  See, for example, the three cases now pending in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, where the validity of the state’s new sex offender registration scheme is at stake. States are increasingly looking at lifetime registration as punishment under their own state constitutions.  So it should not be long before the U.S. Supreme Court is asked to reconsider its 2003 holdings that such collateral consequences are immune from constitutional challenge based on the Due Process and Ex Post Facto clauses. Read more

Expungement expansion round-up (2016 edition)

More and more states are enacting new expungement and sealing laws, or expanding existing ones, some covering convictions for the first time.  The first four months of 2016 alone saw courts given significant new authority to limit access to criminal records in four states, and bills have been introduced in several others that promise more new laws in months to come. In April, Kentucky authorized expungement of felonies for the first time, while New Jersey reduced waiting periods for some offenses and made expungement automatic for some others.  Also in April, Maryland’s Governor Hogan signed that state’s Justice Reinvestment Act, permitting expungement of misdemeanor convictions for the first time.  Beginning in November, Pennsylvania courts will have new authority to seal misdemeanor offenses, and follow-up bills have been introduced in both houses to make sealing automatic for most non-felony records after a waiting period.  There are also several pending proposals to significantly expand existing expungement laws in Oklahoma, Missouri, and Rhode Island. We take a closer look at each of these new expungement authorities below. The new laws evidence the growing momentum behind second-chance reforms.  They also show how expansion of expungement and sealing mechanisms can be an incremental process.  For example, the legislatures in Maryland and Pennsylvania first tested the waters by giving courts new authority to mitigate low-level conviction records in relatively limited ways, with both following up shortly after with proposals to increase both the availability and effectiveness of those mechanisms.  Meanwhile, states with fairly robust expungement mechanisms already in place, like New Jersey, Missouri, and Kentucky, have taken steps to make relief available sooner and to more people.  Relatedly, in the first four months of 2016, six more states enacted or expanded state-wide ban-the-box laws limiting inquiry about criminal records at early stages of the hiring process, bringing the total to 23. Perhaps the most significant thing about these legislative initiatives is the almost total absence from the debate of objections based on public safety concerns.  Indeed, to the extent the principal purpose of expungement laws is to increase employment opportunities for people with a criminal record, their proponents argue that they actually reduce recidivism.  As legislators and their constituents witness firsthand the additional benefits provided by each small expansion of expungement authority, they are increasingly willing to take those reforms a few steps further.  For a review of expungement laws in all 50 states, see here.      Newly enacted and newly effective legislation: Kentucky – HB-40 In April, Governor Matt Bevin signed HB-40, giving people convicted of certain non-violent Class D felonies or who have had received a full pardon the opportunity to petition to have their convictions vacated, charges dismissed, and records expunged.  Previously, expungement was only available for misdemeanors.  A waiting period of five crime-free years applies, and vacatur and expungement may only be sought once in a person’s lifetime (though multiple eligible felonies stemming from the same incident may be expunged under a single petition).  Expunged records are deleted from official databases (including law enforcement), will not show up in background checks, and need not be acknowledged.  The court and other agencies “shall reply to any inquiry that no record exists on the matter.”  Felony expungement also restores the right to vote.  The law will take effect in July. The law’s short waiting period and broad effect are good news to anyone with an eligible conviction, but the high $500 filing fee required to apply could make relief unattainable for many Kentuckians.  The irony is that the people most likely to benefit from the new law — those who have difficulty finding employment because of their record —  are the same people least likely to be able to afford the fee.  High filing fees have come recently under fire in Tennessee, where the $450 filing fee for expungement has become so prohibitive that groups have resorted to creating private funds to pay the fees on behalf of petitioners. You can view our guide to restoration of rights, pardon, expungement & sealing in Kentucky here; and our in-depth post on the new law here. New Jersey – P.L. 2015, c. 261 In April, P.L. 2015, c. 261 went into effect, authorizing immediate expungement following successful completion of drug court or court-ordered rehabilitation, allowing for early expungement of youthful drug offenses, reducing the waiting period for expungement of both misdemeanors (or “disorderly persons offenses,” as they are known in the Garden State) and felonies (“indictable offenses”), and allowing felonies and misdemeanors to be expunged at the same time.  The new law also makes expungement of non-conviction records automatic and immediate. The law’s drug court expungement provision is expected to have the greatest impact.  According to one article, “in the last 15 years, nearly 20,000 people have been enrolled in the state’s Drug Court program.”  Under the new law, anyone who successfully completes a court-ordered rehabilitation program under NJSA § 2C:35-14 may have the record expunged immediately upon discharge. Expungement is mandatory “unless [the court] finds that the need for the availability of the record outweighs the desirability of having the person freed from any disabilities associated with their availability.”  The law is retroactive, so that people who were successfully discharged prior to the new law’s effective date can petition the convicting court for expungement. Expungement under this provision is not necessarily permanent, though: Acess to the record may be restored if the person is subsequently convicted of a crime, and “no future expungements shall be granted.” In effect, this gives individuals only one bite at the expungement apple. The new law also allows persons convicted of low-level drug offenses when they 21 years old or younger to petition for expungement just one year after completion of their sentence if they have no other convictions and no probation or parole violations. The presumptive waiting period for felony and misdemeanor expungement through the normal route remains ten and five years, respectively.  However, the new law offers an “early pathway” to expungement:  If the court finds that expungement “is in the public interest, giving due consideration to the nature of the offense, and the applicant’s character and conduct since conviction,” then the court may expunge a felony after five years and a misdemeanor after three.  Though a person may only seek expungement once, up to three misdemeanors may be expunged at the same time, and, under the new law, up to two misdemeanors may be expunged at the same time as a single felony.  Previously, expungement of a misdemeanor precluded felony expungement, and conviction of a felony precluded misdemeanor expungement. If multiple offenses are expunged at once, the waiting period runs from the date of the latest conviction. The legislature had originally proposed to reduce the waiting periods for felonies and misdemeanors outright (five years for felonies and three years for misdemeanors).  The discretionary waiting period reduction that found its way into the new law was the result of a compromise with Governor Christie, who vetoed the original proposal in January, saying: As written, this bill would cut in half the presumptive waiting period to expunge indictable offenses, often felonies, from ten years to five years, and eliminate an important safeguard which allows a judge to consider whether granting an expungement is in the public’s interest. The current public interest exception to the presumptive waiting period is an effective and efficient way to help ex-offenders combat the collateral consequences of their offense, while also ensuring that public safety is not compromised. Taken as a whole, the new law represents a major overhaul of New Jersey’s expungement scheme, making it easier for people to clear their records and allowing them to do it sooner. Unfortunately, the new law did not expand upon the list of offenses that are eligible for expungement through the usual route.  In addition to violent felonies, most first and second degree non-violent drug crimes remain ineligible. You can view our guide to restoration of rights, pardon, expungement & sealing in New Jersey here. A “New Law Advisory” on the changes published by the Administrative Office of the Courts is available here. Maryland – Justice Reinvestment Act (SB-1005) Just this month, Maryland Governor Larry Hogan signed the Justice Reinvestment Act, a comprehensive criminal justice reform bill that authorizes courts to expunge misdemeanor offenses for the first time.  The new expungement authority follows closely on the heels of a law enacted last year that allowed for “shielding” of certain misdemeanors.  Records expunged under the new bill are subject to more expansive protections than those that are merely “shielded;” however, the waiting period for sealing is much longer. Under the new law, over 100 enumerated misdemeanors are eligible for expungement after ten crime-free years.  Eligible offenses include second degree assault, drug possession, prostitution, theft, disorderly conduct, various fraud offenses, and various regulatory offenses.  Second degree assault and “domestically related offenses” are subject an an extended 15-year waiting period.  Only 12 non-violent misdemeanors are eligible for shielding under the law enacted last year, but a record may be shielded after only three years. Expungement under the new law is discretionary, and a court can only grant a petition if sealing “is in the best interests of justice,” and the person does not pose a public safety risk.  Shielding is similarly discretionary, but may be granted under a lower “good cause” standard. Records that are expunged are afforded more protection than those that are shielded, which explains the heightened eligibility requirements that apply to expungement.  A record that is expunged may only be opened by court order and is destroyed after three years.  A person may not be required to disclose information about an expunged records to an employer, educational institution, or government licensing agency.  Additionally, a person cannot be denied employment or licensure solely because of a refusal to disclose an expunged record.  Shielded records are afforded far less protection in comparison: Though they are not publicly available and may not generally be used by employers or licensing boards, any employer or licensing agency that is required or authorized by law to inquire into a person’s criminal record may access a person’s shielded record, as may health occupation boards, child care facilities, and the medical marijuana commission, and others. Prior to the enactment of the new shielding and expungement laws, there was no way to hide or get rid of any adult criminal conviction, with small exceptions for nuisance offenses, decriminalized offenses, and pardoned non-violent first-offender convictions.  In spite of the legislature’s recent flurry of action, all felonies remain ineligible for expungement or shielding. The new law will take effect on October 1, 2017. You can view our guide to restoration of rights, pardon, expungement & sealing in Maryland here; and our in-depth post on the Mafryland “shielding” law enacted last year here. Pennsylvania SB-166 (2015) Beginning on November 14, Pennsylvanians will be able to seal the records of 2nd and 3rd degree misdemeanors and ungraded offenses under an “order for limited access,” thanks to a law enacted last year.  As was the case in Maryland before the passage of the shielding law, there was previously no way for Pennsylvanians to seal or expunge their conviction records (with narrow exceptions for certain elderly applicants and pardoned convictions). Sealing will be available after a ten-year waiting period, during which time the petitioner may not have been arrested or prosecuted for another offense.  People with certain convictions, including simple assault (except in the 3rd degree), four or more offenses punishable by imprisonment of one or more years, and any offense punishable by more than two years’ imprisonment, will be ineligible.   Sealing appears to be discretionary, though the law provides no standards to guide the court’s discretion. Sealed records will not disappear and will not be entirely confidential.  They will remain available to state professional and occupational licensing agencies and to agencies such as the Department of Human Services for child protective services uses, as well as to criminal justice agencies.  However, sealed records will be unavailable to the general public, including private employers and landlords, and, unless requested by an agency to whom disclosure is already authorized, “no individual shall be required nor requested to disclose information about the person’s [sealed] criminal history records.” The limited effect of sealing is understandable from a political perspective given that this is Pennsylvania’s first general authority for sealing convictions.  What is less understandable is the fact that an arrest for conduct not proven in court resets the ten-year waiting period — itself already relatively long compared to the waiting periods for sealing of minor convictions in other jurisdictions.  As discussed in the next part, the legislature is already considering broadening the effect of sealing, but there have been no proposals to amend the law to address the effect of arrests. You can view our guide to restoration of rights, pardon, expungement & sealing in Pennsylvania here. Pending legislation Pennsylvania SB-1197/HB-1984 Twin “Clean Slate” bills introduced in April would follow up on last year’s sealing bill by making make sealing automatic upon satisfaction of an eligibility waiting period:  Ten years for misdemeanors, five years for summary offenses, and seven years for juvenile adjudications.  Sealing of non-conviction records will be automatic and immediate.  The bills would also eliminate the exception under the current law that allows for most occupational and licensing boards to consider records that have been sealed. tisan sponsorship.  According to Community Legal Services of Philadelphia, both bills have received broad bi-partisan support, and indeed the Senate passed its bill unanimously not long after its introduction. Missouri SB-588 On May 11, the Missouri legislature passed a bill that would significantly reduce the waiting periods for both felony and misdemeanor expungement.  The bill is currently awaiting action from Governor Nixon, who said he will give it serious consideration. The bill would reduce the waiting period for felony expungement from 20 years down to seven.  Misdemeanor waiting periods would be reduced from ten years to three.  If the bill is approved, it is expected to drastically increase the number of expungement applications filed in the state.  One report notes that, “according to a financial analysis of the proposal, the additional number of people filing for expungement could trigger the hiring of hundreds of workers to process the requests.” The benefit of reduced waiting periods would come with a trade-off, though: Under the proposed law, a person would only be able to expunge one felony or two misdemeanors in their lifetime (although, multiple offenses resulting from the same indictment would be treated as a single expungement of the highest-level offense).  Under current law, there is no limit on the number of convictions that can be expunged, with the odd caveat that a person cannot receive more than one expungement order from the same court. You can view our guide to restoration of rights, pardon, expungement & sealing in Missouri here. Oklahoma HB-2397 House Bill 2397, which is currently in conference in Oklahoma’s Senate, would reduce the expungement waiting period for people sentenced to a term of imprisonment or suspended sentence from ten years down to five.  Additionally, people convicted of misdemeanors would be allowed to seek expungement immediately upon satisfaction of a fine of $500 or less, so long as imprisonment or a suspended sentence was not ordered.   The bill would also allow those convicted of up to two non-violent felonies that have been pardoned to seek expungement. You can view our guide to restoration of rights, pardon, expungement & sealing in Oklahoma here.  Rhode Island H-7536, S-2111 Two separate expungement bills are now in committee in the House and Senate.  The bill in the House, H-7536, would authorize courts to expunge up to five misdemeanors if a person has remained conviction and arrest-free for ten years and has never been convicted of a felony.  The current law only allows for expungement of first-offender misdemeanors.  The bill is chiefly backed by Attorney General Peter Kilmartin, a former police officer. The bill in the Senate, S-2111, would permit courts to expunge records related to a deferred sentence immediately upon compliance with all of the terms of the deferral agreement so long as the person has never been convicted of a crime of violence. Deferred sentencing records can be sealed under the current law, but expungement provides a slightly higher degree of protection than sealing. Under both bills, expungement would be contingent upon a person demonstrating “good moral character.” You can view our guide to restoration of rights, pardon, expungement & sealing in Rhode Island here. Read more

Challenge to SORNA retroactivity reaches Pennsylvania Supreme Court

In the last few years, Pennsylvania’s courts have taken an active role in defining the propriety and scope of the state’s sex offender registration program.  Following on the heels of a December 2014 decision striking down sex offender registration for juveniles, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently agreed to hear a sweeping challenge to the retroactive application of Pennsylvania’s adult sex offender registry. The new law, generally referred to as SORNA (Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act), took effect on December 20, 2012 as part of an effort to comply with the federal laws governing sex offenders.  SORNA replaced a more lenient registration scheme where the majority of people convicted of sexual crimes had to register for only ten years.  SORNA changed the paradigm and drastically increased the number of people included on the registry, the time periods for which they would have to register, and the number of things they have to report.  Of the close to 19,500 people on the registry today, roughly three quarters have to register for the rest of their lives without any chance of removal. In addition to making most offenders lifetime registrants, SORNA reclassified thousands of people who were ten year registrants under the old law and retroactively increased their terms of registration – in most instances to life.  Hundreds of registrants sued, raising a number of different challenges to the law.  Until now, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has refused to get involved. On April 22, 2016, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court accepted review in, Commonwealth v. Muniz, Commonwealth v. Gilbert,and Commonwealth v. Reed.  The cases raise both state and federal challenges.  First among several of the most compelling claims, the appellants seek a ruling that SORNA is punitive, not civil, and therefore cannot be applied retroactively under the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the United States and Pennsylvania Constitution.  The United States Supreme Court in a 2003 ruling, Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003), held that Alaska’s registry was designed to protect public safety, and was not so burdensome so as to constitute punishment.  Because the Ex Post Facto clause applies to punishment only, retroactively requiring people to register was therefore acceptable under the Federal Constitution.  But many state supreme courts are reviewing registration laws under their own constitutions, often with different results. SORNA, like those laws struck down in Ohio, Indiana, Maryland, and elsewhere, is much broader and harsher than the Alaska law at issue in Smith.  The appellants hope that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court agrees and declares the law punitive thereby invalidating the retroactive increases in registration. The appellants also raise intriguing procedural due process challenges, particularly under the Pennsylvania Constitution.  Under another United States Supreme Court case, Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe, 538 U.S. 1 (2003), the Court held that because Connecticut’s law sent no message beyond that registration attaches to particular convictions, the trial process itself afforded sufficient due process.  That is not the case in Pennsylvania.  SORNA, as specified by statute, declares that registrants are highly likely to recidivise sexually, and are therefore dangerous.  However, not only do those convicted of sexual offenses tend to be one of the least likely populations to commit another offense generally, Pennsylvania does not allow a registrant to show he or she is a low risk for reoffending and that question is not at issue during a trial on the underlying offense.   To make a public finding that an individual is dangerous, but failing to provide an opportunity to challenge that determination, the appellants believe the fundamental tenets of notice and opportunity to be heard are denied. This due process concern is amplified in Pennsylvania because unlike the Federal Constitution, Pennsylvania’s Constitution includes reputation as a fundamental right.  The appellants have latched onto the added protections of this clause and raised a version of due process called the irrebutable presumption doctrine.  The doctrine provides that if a state denies a person or group a right based upon a particular presumption, the presumption must be universally true and there must be no reasonable alternatives available to determine the classification.  In plain language, the appellants argue that SORNA denies a person their right to reputation by presuming that a conviction for an enumerated offense means they are likely to sexually recidivise.  However, that presumption is not universally true because many offenders are not high risks to recidivise, and there are science based risk assessment tools that are capable of making these assessments, i.e., reasonable alternatives. The court also accepted many other claims, so it obviously wants to put the issue to rest.  On which side of the bed it ultimately settles is currently difficult to guess.  A decision is likely expected sometime in early 2017. Read more