Category: non-conviction records

DC enacts progressive new record-clearing law

Until last month, the District of Columbia had one of the most complex and restrictive record relief laws in the country. D.C.’s sealing law even applied the same burdensome petition-based procedures, extended waiting periods, and onerous burdens of proof to non-conviction records that applied to convictions. In testimony before the D.C. Council in 2021, CCRC’s Margaret Love noted: “Compared to states across the country, DC’s record relief laws are very prohibitive and unusually complex.” CCRC’s Reintegration Report Card published in March 2022 commented that “the restoration laws in the District of Columbia are noteworthy for a remarkable study in contrasts: D.C. has extraordinarily progressive laws in civil areas like voting, employment, housing, and occupational licensing, and among the most regressive laws in the Nation in every category of criminal record relief, likely reflecting the heavy hand of the federal authorities that are responsible for most prosecutions under the D.C. Code.”

Last month, everything changed. The Second Chance Amendment Act of 2022 (D.C. Law 24-284, codified at D.C. Code § 16-801 et seq.), which became final after the required period of congressional review on March 16, 2023, gave the District one of the broadest record-clearing laws in the country, including both petition-based relief for all but the most serious violent felony convictions, and automatic relief for misdemeanors and non-conviction records.  D.C. now becomes the 11th U.S. jurisdiction to enact a “clean slate” law that applies to both conviction and non-conviction records.

The new D.C. record-clearing law is the product of more than two years of hard work by the D.C. Council and a broad coalition of advocacy groups in the District. When coupled with the District’s progressive civil restoration laws referenced above, this new law propels DC from middle-of-the-pack to the top tier of jurisdictions in the Nation where fair treatment of justice-affected individuals is concerned. It will certainly advance DC’s candidacy for Reintegration Champion of 2023.

Though D.C. Law 24-284 is enacted, it is unfunded, which means it cannot be used. Currently, the FY24 Budget Support Act of 2023 set the effective date for the Second Chance Act as 1/1/26 for most of the law and 10/1/29 for the automatic sealing provisions.

The new law’s specific provisions are described in greater detail below, and in the DC profile from CCRC’s Restoration of Rights Project.

The new D.C. law provides for petition-based sealing for all non-conviction records at disposition, for all misdemeanors after a five-year waiting period, and for all but a specified group of the most serious felony convictions after an eight-year waiting period.  The waiting period begins following completion of all aspects of the sentence, except that it does not require payment of fines and other court debt. The law also facilitates procedures: e.g., not all eligible records need be sealed at the same time, as under the old law, and there are no “disqualifying offenses” that could extend the waiting period even for non-conviction records.

It also eases standards, particularly for sealing non-conviction records: it deleted a provision allowing the court to consider “the weight of the evidence against the person” and any priors sealings of arrest records.  It specifically directs the court in all cases to consider “The community’s interest in furthering the movant’s rehabilitation and enhancing the movant’s reintegration into society through education, employment, and housing.” As noted, D.C.’s existing sealing law extended to same burdensome procedures and standards to non-conviction records that applied to sealing of convictions.

The new law makes sealing automatic beginning in 2027 for non-conviction records, and for most misdemeanor convictions after a 10-year waiting period. It also provides for automatic expungement of marijuana convictions effective January 1, 2025, and for expungement by petition on grounds of actual innocence. Provisions in existing law authorizing expungement for victims of human trafficking and sealing for juvenile defendants were not changed.

D.C. now joins the 19 states that have enacted automatic record-clearing relief for arrest records and other non-convictions.  More than half of these state laws have been enacted in the three years since publication of CCRC’s Model Law on Non-Conviction Records, which advocated for automatic expungement of all non-conviction records, including records with no final disposition, except for pending matters. Like CCRC’s model law, which was cited as authority by several parties during the hearings before the D.C. Council, the new D.C. law recommends restrictions on accessing, inquiring about, and commercially disseminating non-conviction records.

Sealed records are placed in a non-public file but remain available to law enforcement, courts, prosecutors, licensing agencies, public employers, and schools and child care facilities, to be used “for any lawful purpose.” Sealed records may also be used in civil litigation relating to the arrest or conviction, and may be made available to others “upon order of the Court for good cause shown.”  An individual whose record has been sealed may deny the arrest or conviction “for any purpose”, without penalty of perjury or other provision of the law for giving a false statement. This appears to be a change from the 2006 law, which required testimony about prior arrests and convictions “in response to an inquiry from one of the entities expressly authorized to access the records.” In other words, while certain entities may gain access to sealed records, the subject of the record may lawfully deny its existence without penalty.

The 2022 law imposes certain requirements on “criminal history providers” that provide criminal history background screening reports, requirements that mirror those provided by the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act.  It requires providers to provide the subject of a background report with a copy of the report and identify the source of the report, and to use at least two identifiers (e.g., birthdate and name); prohibits reporting records that have been sealed, expunged or set aside; and pohibits reporting information that has not been updated within 30 days of the report.  Complaints of a violation of these provisions may be filed with the DC Office of Human Rights (but not in court), and fines are specified for violations.

There are still ways that D.C.’s sealing law could be improved.  For example, there appears to be no good reason why sealed non-conviction records should remain available to employers and licensing agencies, and in most states they are not. Automatic relief should be extended to all convictions now subject to sealing by petition, and the waiting periods for both petition-based and automatic relief seem excessive by standards in recently enacted record-clearing laws.  See CCRC’s 2022 report on waiting periods, Waiting for Relief: A National Survey of Waiting Periods for Record Clearing (February 2022).  But those caveats aside, the new law represents the most substantial progress in record clearing of any U.S. jurisdiction since 2018, when North Dakota and New Mexico enacted a broad sealing scheme for the first time.  Congratulations to the D.C. Council!

 

 

 

 

California poised to expand record clearing to cover most felonies

NOTE: On September 29, Governor Newsom signed into law both of the bills discussed in the post below. They will take effect on January 1, 2023.   

California Governor Gavin Newsom is expected to sign this week two bills that will give that state the broadest record-clearing laws in the nation. Senate Bill 731 would extend both automatic and petition-based and record relief to felony-level offenses, while Senate Bill 1106 would preclude denial of relief based on outstanding court debt in most cases.

When signed into law, Senate Bill 731 will place California at the forefront of record clearing nationwide. It would expand automatic record relief to all felony non-convictions since January 1, 1973, six years after the date of arrest. California law currently excludes felony arrests from eligibility for automatic relief if the charge is serious enough to potentially result in incarceration at a state prison. Other felony non-convictions remain eligible for automatic relief after three years unless the charge was punishable by eight years’ incarceration or more in a county jail, for which the new six-year wait period applies.

SB 731 also expands eligibility for automatic relief to persons convicted of a felony and sentenced to probation on or after January 1, 2005, if they violated probation but later completed all terms of supervision. Current law excludes from relief anyone who violated their probation. The new law requires a four-year conviction-free period after completion of the sentence. This expansion of automatic relief does not apply to certain serious and violent felonies, and ones for which the person is required to register as a sex offender. As noted below, all but the last-mentioned category will now be eligible for relief by petition.

Read more

Judicial Diversion and Deferred Adjudication: A National Survey

Last week we announced the forthcoming publication of a national report surveying various legal mechanisms for restoring rights and opportunities following arrest or conviction, a revision and updating of our 2020 report “The Many Roads to Reintegration.” The first post in the series (“Expungement, Sealing & Set-Aside of Convictions“), published on February 25, gives some additional background about the report. The second post in this “preview” series (“Fair Chance Employment & Occupational Licensure“) was published on February 26.  The third part (“Executive Pardon“) was published on February 28.

Today’s post concerns the role that court-managed diversionary dispositions play in reducing convictions and avoiding collateral consequences.  Since our first national report was published in 2018, many states have expanded the availability of these non-conviction dispositions, including for any defendant potentially eligible for a probationary sentence, and made record clearing more generally available.

We expect to publish the whole national report, plus our Reintegration Report Card for 2022, later this week.

Judicial Diversion and Deferred Adjudication: A National Survey

An increasingly desirable strategy for facilitating reintegration through avoiding collateral consequences is to divert individuals away from a conviction at the front end of a criminal case. Diversion in its various forms offers a less adversarial means of resolving an investigation or prosecution through compliance with agreed-upon community-based conditions leading to dismissal of charges and termination of the matter without conviction. Diversionary dispositions are described in the Model Penal Code: Sentencing as a way to “hold the individual accountable for criminal conduct when justice and public safety do not require that the individual be subjected to the stigma and collateral consequences associated with conviction.”[1] In this understanding, diversion functions as a mechanism for ensuring accountability and facilitating rehabilitation, rather than as retribution for its own sake.[2] The effectiveness of diversionary dispositions in furthering these goals has not been studied in depth, and they are not without their controversial aspects, but existing research suggests their promise.[3] Diversion may allow for a mutually-acceptable outcome for the prosecutor and defendant in cases where the extent of culpability is not clear, where a treatment intervention seems appropriate, or where the defendant otherwise fits within some category considered deserving of leniency (e.g., human trafficking victims, veterans, “youthful offenders”).

Read more

When banks ask loan applicants about their arrest record

The National Community Reinvestment Coalition reports that its evaluation of small business loan applications from a sample of seven banks in Washington, DC revealed that “some lenders discriminate against applicants who have been charged at any time in their lives with a criminal offense.”  A comment on the NCRC website proposes that these banks consider applicants to be “a lending risk for having been ‘ever charged’ with any crime, other than a minor vehicle violation, no matter when it occurred.”  It goes on to argue that “[t]his practice is not only factually suspect, it is discriminatory.”  The comment, written by Anneliese Lederer, the NCRC’s Director of Fair Lending, was subsequently republished in The American Banker. 

The NCRC findings demonstrate that even interactions with the criminal justice system that do not result in a conviction record can have “lasting implications:”

It is known that having a criminal record is a barrier to both housing and employment. There are few protections for people with a criminal record.

But what about for people who have been charged and found not guilty, or their charges were dropped? What barriers do they face? Unfortunately, they face similar barriers as people who have a criminal record, especially in the small business lending arena.

Citing CCRC’s analyses of lending policies of the Small Business Administration, the NCRC comment highlights how these policies have given banks cover for their discriminatory practices:

Small business loans administered by the Small Business Administration (SBA) have broad criminal history restrictions. Analysis conducted by the Collateral Consequences Resource Center (CCRC) found that no statute requires criminal history to be used as a factor in determining creditworthiness. Instead, the Small Business Act uses the words “may verify the applicant’s criminal background.” Furthermore, many restrictions that the US Small Business Administration (SBA) implements on interactions with the justice system are not codified. These restrictions are “either unannounced or only disclosed through FAQs published on the agency’s website…..[or] through policy statements and application forms.”

Read more

Delaware governor signs automatic record-clearing law

Delaware lawmakers passed two bills this year that overhaul access to second chances, making it easier for more than 290,000 people to move beyond the collateral consequences of a criminal record.  The two pieces of legislation – Senate Bill 111 and Senate Bill 112 – expand access to Delaware’s mandatory expungement process effective January 1, 2022, and make mandatory expungement automatic (or “Clean Slate”) by August 2024.

State Senators passed the bills unanimously in April and the House of Representatives followed suit — approving the bills by an overwhelming majority during the late stages of the legislative session in June. Both bills were signed into law by Governor John Carney on Monday, November 8, 2021 — making Clean Slate a reality in Delaware. (The specific records that will be subject to mandatory expungement starting in 2022 are described later in this post.)

Delaware is most recent addition to the growing number of states in the nation to make record clearing automatic for at least some convictions, so that eligible individuals will no longer be required to complete a burdensome and expensive petition-based process to get their record expunged. (Several other states have automated expungement exclusively for marijuana convictions.)

Read more

Arizona enacts its very first sealing law – and it’s impressive!

In July 2021, in an unheralded action in the final days of its legislative session, Arizona enacted a law that authorized its courts for the first time to seal conviction records. See SB1294, enacting Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-911. The same law authorized sealing of uncharged arrests and dismissed and acquitted charges, also for the first time. Prior to this enactment, Arizona was one of a handful of states whose legislature had made no provision for limiting public access to conviction records, and was literally the only state in the country whose courts and records repository had no authority to seal non-conviction records. Now the state will have one of the broadest sealing laws in the country when it becomes effective on January 1, 2023.

(In the November 2020 election, Arizona voters approved a proposition to legalize marijuana, which included a provision for expungement of certain marijuana-related records.  But until now no general sealing authority had been enacted by the Arizona legislature.)

As described below, the law makes all but the most serious offenses eligible for sealing after completion of sentence (including payment of court debt) and a graduated waiting period.  It also appears that 1) multiple eligible convictions may be sealed, in a single proceeding or sequentially; 2) the prior conviction of a felony (even if ineligible) does not disqualify an eligible offense from relief but simply extends the applicable waiting period; 3) a conviction during the waiting period restarts the waiting period; and 4) there is no limit on the number of occasions on which sealing may be sought.

Read more

Reintegration reform returns to pre-pandemic levels in first half of 2021

This year is proving to be a landmark one for legislation restoring rights and opportunities to people with a criminal record, extending the remarkable era of “reintegration reform” that began around 2013. Just in the past six months, 30 states and the District of Columbia have enacted an extraordinary 101 new laws to mitigate collateral consequences. Six more bills await a governor’s signature.  It appears that legislative momentum in support of facilitating reintegration has returned to the pre-pandemic pace of 2019.

Overall, the past 30 months have produced an astonishing total of 361 laws aimed at neutralizing the adverse effect of a criminal record, plus more than a dozen additional executive actions and ballot initiatives.

Read more

Oregon’s expungement statute gets a much-needed overhaul

– Following George Floyd’s murder, NIKE and Metropolitan Public Defender, Oregon’s largest trial-level public defense service provider, became unlikely partners to improve Oregon’s expungement statute.

Oregon has allowed expungement of certain criminal records since 1972, but the law and process are so complicated and costly that only 5.5% of eligible residents ultimately obtain relief.  The statute is replete with exceptions, convictions block other convictions and non-convictions, the least serious convictions have a lengthy “look back” period of conviction-free conduct that regularly results in a 10-year waiting period, and non-person class B felonies have the longest waiting period in the nation (20 years). Even non-convictions are subject to the same 10-year look-back period as convictions, plus an additional three-year period of no other arrests, dismissals or acquittals.

The impact of Oregon’s dysfunctional system is felt most severely by its BIPOC community who are more likely to be arrested, charged and convicted.  Black Oregonians are almost four times as likely to have a criminal record as their white counterparts.  See Paperprisons.org.

Metropolitan Public Defender and NIKE’s pro bono group, frustrated by the complex law and process, were inspired by the Black Lives Matter protests following George Floyd’s murder.  They challenged themselves to create tangible change and co-wrote the proposal that became Senate Bill 397, with input from CCRC. Collaboration with prosecutors led to bipartisan support in the Oregon legislature (Senate 24-5, House 57-1) for the bill, which Governor Kate Brown is expected to sign. It will be effective January 1, 2022.

Read more

DC’s non-conviction sealing law is uniquely complex and restrictive

Last year, 20 states enacted reforms expanding access to expungement, record-sealing, and other forms of record relief. Many legislatures, including the District of Columbia Council, are considering reform proposals this session. Given the progressive steps taken by the District in the past year to expand opportunities for people with a criminal record to vote and obtain occupational licensing, we are optimistic that the Council will enact significant improvements to its lagging record-sealing law.

Compared to states across the country, DC’s record relief law is very prohibitive and unusually complex. First, its non-conviction sealing scheme is “one of the most restrictive” in the country (as we described it in our Model Law on Non-Conviction Records). Second, to seal a misdemeanor conviction, an 8-year waiting period must be satisfied (far longer than most states), and then a series of rules exclude individuals based on a long list of ineligible offenses and a variety of disqualifying prior and subsequent records. Finally, DC allows only a single specific felony conviction to be sealed,1 while 34 states allow a range of felonies to be sealed or expunged.

This post explains how DC’s law on sealing of non-conviction records in particular does not fare well in the national landscape.

Summary

Current DC law is out of step with national trends toward automatic and expedited sealing of non-conviction records at or shortly after disposition (approaches enacted last year in Kentucky and North Carolina, for example). It is also more complex and restrictive than analogous laws in almost every state in three primary areas:

  • The waiting period before a person may apply for sealing a non-conviction record is longer than in most states, and the effect that a prior or subsequent conviction has on extending the waiting period is unusually severe.
  • The provision ruling out sealing for a successfully completed deferred sentencing agreement based on the person’s other record is counterproductive and harsher than the norm.
  • The procedures and standards that apply in proceedings to seal a non-conviction record are more burdensome and restrictive than in any state, differing little from the procedures and standards that apply to sealing a conviction record.

Read more

Study measures gap between availability and delivery of “second chance” relief

Professor Colleen V. Chien of Santa Clara University has published a major empirical study in the Michigan Law Review that examines the gap between eligibility for and actual delivery of relief from contact with the criminal justice system, a construct she calls the “second chance gap.” (The term is defined with examples here.) Last week, Chien led a team of law students, researchers and data analysts from Santa Clara University in launching the Paper Prisons Initiative, a project that draws on her study’s methodology to estimate this gap for each state’s record relief laws.

During the current wave of criminal record reforms that began around 2013, every state legislature has taken steps to chip away at the negative effects of a record through authorizing or expanding expungement, sealing, and other forms of record relief. At the same time, it has become evident that bureaucratic and structural obstacles prevent many of these laws from achieving their full promise—particularly when they require a potential beneficiary to navigate a complex and burdensome judicial or administrative process.

Last June, Professors Sonja B. Starr and J.J. Prescott published the first broad-based empirical study of a state law limiting public access to criminal records, revealing that just 6.5% of those eligible for relief in Michigan successfully completed the application process within five years. This conclusion has given additional impetus to the movement to make record-sealing automatic: six states now authorize “clean slate” relief for a range of conviction records, 16 states do so for non-conviction records, and clean slate campaigns are underway in several additional states.

In “America’s Paper Prisons: The Second Chance Gap,”  Professor Chien provides a more general perspective on the gap between eligibility and delivery of second chance relief documented for Michigan by Starr and Prescott. In her article, Chien looks at three forms of relief from contact with the criminal justice system—record-clearing, restoration of voting rights, and shortening prison sentences. Based on her analysis, the paper concludes that in many cases only a small fraction of those eligible for relief (usually less than 10%) have received it. Most notably, she uses novel data collection and analysis to estimate that at least 20 to 30 million American adults have non-conviction records that appear to be clearable under existing law but that have not been cleared. In follow-up state-specific papers available on the Paper Prisons Initiative website, she and her team have estimated the second chance expungement gap in convictions relief for a number of states.

I.

The first part of “America’s Paper Prisons” explores the reasons for the “second chance gap”:

In the same way that the accused remain innocent until proven guilty in the U.S. criminal justice system, many second chance programs require defendants to “prove” that they deserve second chances before awarding them. As such, getting one’s second chance through petition-based processes may include enduring a bureaucratic process, amassing information through a variety of sources, and being evaluated by an adjudicative or administrative body. The high cost of doing so in many cases may be insurmountable.

Chien divides the barriers that contribute to the second chance gap into three categories: administrative barriers, like informational and transactional costs; structural barriers, like a requirement to pay court debt and participate in a formal court hearing; and substantive barriers, like perceptions that the costs of the process outweigh its benefits.[1]

II.

The second part of Chien’s paper estimates the second chance gap for an assortment of relief mechanisms, drawing on both original data collection and secondary sources. Chien uses two metrics: the “uptake gap,” which measures the share of individuals over time who are eligible and have not applied or not received relief; and the “current gap,” which looks at the share of individuals at the certain moment in time who are eligible but have not received relief. Her analysis shows, on a nearly uniform basis, that only a small percentage of eligible individuals obtain relief in petition-based programs.

The relief mechanisms she studies confer different benefits, are animated by differing policy objectives, and vary in eligibility criteria and administrative process. Still, a general pattern is clear across the following second chance gaps that Chien presents:

Read more

1 2