Tag: Tennessee

More states facilitating licensing for people with a criminal record

Last week we posted a description of a detailed new Indiana law regulating consideration of conviction in occupational and professional licensure throughout the state.  It now appears that this may represent a trend, as eight additional states have either recently enacted or are poised to enact similarly progressive occupational licensing schemes.  New general laws regulating licensure are in place in Arizona, Illinois, and Massachusetts.  Similar bills have been enrolled and are on the governor’s desk for signature in Kansas, Maryland, Nebraska, and Tennessee.  Arizona’s new 2018 licensing law follows on another law passed in that state in 2017 that authorized provisional licenses for individuals with a criminal record.  Massachusett’s new licensing law is part of a more general criminal justice reform bill.   Delaware and Connecticut have also recently loosened restrictions on licensing for cosmetology and related professions. The licensing reforms in these states – and in several other states where licensing bills are less far along toward enactment — seem to have been influenced by a model law proposed by the Institute for Justice, a libertarian public interest law firm.  Key features of the Model Occupational Licensing Review Act as they affect individuals with criminal records are 1) to provide individuals with an opportunity to seek a preliminary determination from the licensing agency as to whether their criminal record will be disqualifying; 2) to require licensing agencies to disqualify only if an applicant has been convicted of a felony or violent misdemeanor, and if the agency determines that “the state has an important interest in protecting public safety that is superior to the individual’s right to pursue a lawful occupation”; and 3) to require each agency to publish a report annually on the number of applicants with a criminal record seeking a license, the number of approvals and denials, and the type of offenses for each type of action.  Disqualification is justified under this model law only if the conviction is “substantially related to the state’s interest in protecting public safety,” and the individual will be “more likely to reoffend by having the license than by not having the license.” The federal government is also encouraging licensing reform: the U.S. Department of Labor is supporting a three-year project to assist states improve their general policies and practices related to occupational licensing, including those that affect persons with a criminal record. The project brings together 11 states to participate in the Occupational Licensing Learning Consortium. The 11 states are Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Nevada, Utah and Wisconsin. We are monitoring this legislative trend and will revise the state profiles and other materials in the Restoration of Rights Project as new laws are enacted.   Read more

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

Excessive filing fees frustrate new expungement schemes

How much is a clean slate worth?  That’s the question many people with criminal records are asking in Kentucky, Louisiana, and Tennessee, where the cost of filing for expungement is (or will soon be) between $450 and $550.  To put that into perspective:  In Kentucky, the $500 fee required to expunge an eligible felony conviction under a new law that takes effect in July will equal nearly half of the monthly wages of a full-time worker earning the state’s $7.25 minimum wage.  The relative cost will be even higher for the many people who have difficulty securing steady full-time employment because of their criminal record.  The high filing fee puts relief effectively out of reach for most of those it was intended to benefit,  even if they elect to file without retaining a lawyer. There is a major disconnect between these exorbitant fees and the policy rationale that has led many states to create or expand expungement opportunities in recent years.  Expungement improves the employment prospects of people with criminal records, allowing them to achieve a degree of economic stability that in turn discourages further criminal behavior.  People held back from economic stability by their criminal records are the people that are likely to benefit most from expungement, and the social advantages of expungement are most keenly experienced among this population.  But these are the very people least likely to be able to afford to pay high application fees. According to an article by Maura Ewing published by the Marshall Project earlier this week that takes a closer look at the issue, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Tennessee are outliers among states that allow for expungement in charging such high fees: Many states charge $150 or less to apply for expungement … and some states offer a waiver if the applicant is too poor to pay. In the 17 states that allow for expungement of low-level felonies, “the application fee is generally in line with standard court fees.” So why are the application fees in those three states so high, and where does that money go?  Ewing found that while Louisiana’s fees were considered necessary to cover the costs of an inefficient and underfunded justice system, the fees in Kentucky and Tennessee were driven solely by the prospect of generating general revenue.  From the article: In Tennessee and Kentucky, bloated prices have little to do with processing the application, but rather the state revenue they were designed to produce. Fifty-five percent of the cash collected in Tennessee goes into the state’s general fund. In Kentucky, it will be a full 90 percent. The prospect of revenue is exactly why Tennessee lawmakers were persuaded to pass felony expungement legislation in 2012, said State Representative Raumesh Akbari, a Democrat. At the time, the official estimate was that the law would raise $7 million for the state annually. But it didn’t turn out that way.  Apparently the Tennessee legislature failed to consider that the state’s $450 fee would be an insurmountable obstacle for many otherwise eligible petitioners: In reality, it has generated only about $130,000 each year according to an analysis by a criminal justice nonprofit, Just City. The lack of income is tied to the fact that few would-be applicants can afford to apply, Akbari said. Those disparities are now causing some Tennessee lawmakers to reconsider the high fees; but others seem unwilling to act if lowering the fee means even a modest decrease in the state’s revenue stream. The relatively small revenue stream provided by the expungement fee has complicated legislative reform. A recent bill, sponsored by Akbari, would have lowered it by $100. It had wide bipartisan support, but never made it to the floor because it would have reduced overall income by $88,000. Akbari is undeterred and plans to reintroduce it next year. The $100 reduction is a baby step, she said. Eventually she would like the fee to reflect only the cost of processing the application. As it stands, the costs are so prohibitive in Tennessee that advocates have resorted to creating private funds to pay the fees on the behalf of petitioners who cannot afford them. Public awareness of the issue is gaining momentum in Tennessee. At a fundraising event in February, Memphis Mayor Jim Strickland raised $55,000 in private donations to cover the cost of expungement for indigent applicants. A similar fund run by Just City … has underwritten 70 applicants since its launch three years ago — a modest gain, said Josh Spickler, the Just City executive director. In its reporting on the enactment of Kentucky’s new expungement law, the AP noted that it will give over 60,000 people with felony records a chance at a clean slate.  But if Tennessee is any indication, the $500 application fee will make expungement a practical impossibility for those who could benefit from it the most.  And, since a vast majority of the fees will go directly into the state’s general fund, for which there are many strong defenders, it could be many years before the legislature acts to reconcile the law’s substantive policy goals and its deterrent fee stucture. Read more

The many faces of expungement in America

An article from The Marshall Project published on September 17 got us thinking about the elusive term “expungement” and what it really means, both functionally and philosophically.  In “Five Things You Didn’t Know About Clearing Your Record: A primer on the complicated road to expungement,” Christie Thompson describes an unusual class action lawsuit recently filed by a public-spirited lawyer in a Tennessee county court seeking “to have the case files destroyed for hundreds of thousands of arrests and charges that never resulted in a conviction.”  She proceeds to point out some of the pros and cons of expungement relief, including that expunged records may still be available from private background screening companies or the internet. But the problems with expungement laws are deeper than the article suggests. Quite apart from theoretical objections to relief based on pretense, the fact is that expungement laws have functional flaws even where public records are concerned.  For example, the Tennessee expungement law described in the Marshall Project article has no effect on records in the possession of law enforcement or prosecutors, or on appellate court records and opinions.  See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-32-101(b)(1).  Moreover, it authorizes release of expunged arrest histories of a defendant or potential witness in a criminal proceeding to an attorney of record in the proceeding upon request. See § 40-32-101(c)(3). Expungement schemes in states other than Tennessee have an even more limited effect on public access to criminal records.  For example, expunged convictions must be reported to certain employers in Kansas and Louisiana. Perhaps the most extreme example of expungement not meaning what the term suggests is the comprehensive relief scheme enacted in Indiana in 2013, described in detail in a post on this site some months ago.  “Expungement” under Indiana law does not involve any limitation on public access at all, though nonconviction and misdemeanor records may be “sealed” after they have been “expunged.” Conversely, California’s law authorizing set- aside of certain minor convictions is popularly known as “expungement” even though it involves no limitations on access at all. Michigan’s set-aside law has a similar mistaken identity. As evidenced by the chart on this site, state laws authorizing “expungement” have in recent years been riddled with exceptions, including for public employments or licenses that authorize a background check.  A subsequent conviction may result in lifting whatever restrictions on public access are imposed.  Even the proposed federal REDEEM Act contains numerous exceptions that would allow many employers and others to gain access to “sealed” records. The point is that the terms “expungement” and “sealing” (or “erasure” in Connecticut, and “shielding” under a new Maryland law) are not legal constructs that are uniformly defined or understood, and there are almost as many variations on their functional effect as there are states.  Even juvenile records, where the concept of expungement was pioneered in the 1940s, remain in the public domain far more frequently than in the past. Older forms of judicial relief like set-aside or vacatur, which were extended to valid convictions by the Model Penal Code in the 1960s specifically to restore rights, and to guilty pleas under deferred adjudication schemes in the 1970s specifically to avoid their loss, are considerably clearer and more uniform in legal effect from state to state. As the focus of criminal law reform begins to shift from mass incarceration to mass conviction, it will become ever more important to develop forms of relief from collateral consequences that are clear and effective.  It is not clear that “expungement” or “sealing” laws premised on limiting public access to records will be the most effective approach to restoring rights and status. Read more

Michigan takes baby steps on criminal justice reform

Michigan spends one in five tax dollars on corrections so the state continues to explore strategies to safely reduce these costs.  In its most recent session, the legislature considered bold criminal justice reforms, but strenuous last minute objections from the Attorney General succeeded in halting much of the reform agenda. In the end, only a few reforms were implemented and most of them were passed in watered-down form. The new laws include (1) the establishment of a Criminal Justice Policy Commission; (2) narrow expansion of set-aside eligibility to victims of human trafficking; and (3) authorization for Certificates of Employability for prisoners who complete certain in-prison training programs.  A more ambitious (though still narrow) expansion of the set-aside law is currently on the Governor’s desk for signature.  These “baby steps” leave lots of room for improvement, but constitute a blueprint for future reform efforts. Sentencing reforms – why reform was suggested and what was actually achieved In 2013, led by consultants from the Council of State Governments, Michigan undertook an in-depth study of its sentencing system for its impact on public safety, recidivism, and state and local spending. The study included analysis of 7.5 million data records, and over 300 in-person meetings and calls with stakeholders, such as law enforcement officials and legislators. The study concluded that (1) people throughout Michigan with similar criminal histories and convictions get significantly different sentences; (2) the time a person will actually serve in prison or under supervision cannot be predicted; (3) resources are not prioritized to reduce recidivism; (4) high rates of recidivism generate unnecessary costs and public safety risks, and current funding does not adequately fund reentry programs; and (5) there is no effective mechanism to track sentencing outcomes. Reformers responded.  Leading the charge was Representative Joseph Haveman, a Republican representing one of the most conservative districts in the state. His proposals would have reduced the discretion of judges and the parole board, created consistency in sentencing and supervision, allowed certain offenders to leave prison on parole earlier, decreased probation time, and established swift and predictable sanctions for probation violations. Opposition came from those who wanted to keep the current level of judicial and parole board discretion, and from sheriffs who worried about higher costs to local jails. The strongest opposition came from Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette, who sent letters to lawmakers urging them to reject the bills, claiming that they were being rushed through Michigan’s “lame duck” session.  In the end, the House “gutted” the bills and they died in the Senate. One residual part of Haveman’s package, however, soared through both chambers:  a Criminal Justice Policy Commission was established to review the effectiveness of sentencing guidelines, release and supervision policies, and the use of prisons and jails. Expansion of set-aside authority A set-aside, frequently called “expungement,” makes criminal records unavailable to anyone other than courts, law enforcement agencies, and certain agencies.  Until recently, persons were eligible for set-aside under Michigan law only if they had fewer than two prior “minor offenses,” a term that was very narrowly defined.  See Mich. Comp. Laws 780.621.   Amendments to this provision signed into law by the governor on January 12, 2014, enlarge the category of priors a person may and still remain eligible for set-aside, from “minor offenses” to “misdemeanors.”  (A traffic offense would not constitute a misdemeanor, unless it had been for operating while intoxicated).  In addition, a person convicted of not more than two misdemeanors and no felonies may apply to have either or both of the misdemeanor convictions set aside.  As a result of amendments to 780.621 enacted in the fall of 2014, victims of human trafficking are now permitted to apply to set aside a conviction committed as a result of the trafficking. This new legislation allows more people to apply for a set-aside, but does not go as far as Minnesota’s new law, which extends expungement to a broader range of offenses, requires data-mining companies to honor expungements, addresses victimization and housing evictions, and protects landlords and employers.   [NOTE:  Another law enlarging the basic set-aside authority was signed by the governor in early 2015.  Under this bill, which has been in the works for years, a person who is convicted of not more than one felony offense and not more than two misdemeanors offenses may petition the court to set aside the felony offense.] Certificates of Employability Lastly, a bill authorizing a Certificate of Employability for certain persons currently serving a prison term in Michigan’s Department of Corrections provides some protection against liability for hiring or renting to the holder of a Certificate.  Under PA 360 of 2014, an employer or other person may introduce a Certificate as evidence of due care in hiring, retaining, licensing, leasing to, admitting to a school or program, or otherwise transacting business or engaging in activity with someone who has the Certificate, if the employer knew of the Certificate when hiring or otherwise engaging with its holder.  Like other states with similar employer protections–such as Ohio,[2] Tennessee,[3] and North Carolina,[4] and New York[5] — the Michigan law protects anyone who knows about the Certificate. However, in contrast with those states, most Michigan citizens with a criminal record are not eligible for a Certificate.[6]  The Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which opposes a ban-the-box proposal for job applications, supported the Certificate legislation. The Michigan Department of Corrections is authorized to issue Certificates only to incarcerated people no more than 30 days before release, and only if all of the following apply: (a) The prisoner successfully completed a career and technical education course; (b) The prisoner received no major misconducts during the two years preceding his or her release; (c) The prisoner received no more than three minor misconducts during the two years preceding his or her release; and (d) The prisoner received a “silver level” or better on his or her national work-readiness certificate, or a similar score as determined by the Department on an alternative job skills assessment test administered by the Department.  The Certificate is only valid for 4 years after issuance. Because nearly 80% of Michigan felony offenders since 1999 have been sentenced to community-based sanctions, the vast majority of Michiganders with a felony record will not be eligible for a Certificate. Also ineligible are those who are no longer incarcerated, so that the 163,861 people who have moved from the Department of Corrections to parole since 2000 will be unable to qualify, and neither will people with federal convictions or convictions from other jurisdictions. Finally, people currently at MDOC will be eligible only if they have access to education and training programs, which vary by facility throughout the state. Still, to those who are currently incarcerated by the Department of Corrections, receive education, get training, and are awarded a work-readiness certificate, the Employability Certificate may be helpful – if only for 4 years. Heather Garretson is a Scholar in Residence at City University of New York Law School, the premier public interest law school in the country.  She is a former federal prosecutor, defense attorney, and Professor of Law at Western Michigan University Cooley Law School in Grand Rapids, Michigan. [1] House Bill 5025, MCL 780.621,amended [2] Ohio Rev. Code Ann § 2953.25(G). [3] Tenn. Code Ann § 40-29-107(n)(1). [4] N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-173.5 [5] N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(15) [6] Iowa and Ohio have certificates that are similarly limited to prisoners, but neither of them include protections against negligent hiring. See Iowa Code § 906.19(2), Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§ 2961.21.     Read more