Vermont legislators have returned to discuss reforming the state’s existing expungement system. They will also discuss expanding the ability for residents to seal old criminal records. However, this attempt closely resembles a similar measure that Governor Phill Scott vetoed almost two years ago.

Vermont currently offers two methods for individuals to limit or remove access to their criminal records: expungement and sealing. Expunging records effectively eliminates the recorded criminal history, making it appear like it never happened. Sealing removes the record from public access, though certain agencies can still access it when permitted. During a House judiciary committee meeting, legislative counsel Michele Childs referred to criminal history as “all information documenting an individual’s contact with the criminal justice system.”

This new legislation (H.655) expands the list of offenses qualifying for sealing upon petition. It would also shift certain expungeable offenses to sealable. H.655 would also update who can access sealed criminal records and under what circumstances. Under H.655, the current dual process would change almost entirely to sealing criminal records, with few records qualifying for expungement.

The previous bill, H.534, which Governor Scott vetoed, would have expanded the number of offenses qualifying for expungement. Governor Scott explained that he rejected the bill due to several concerns. For example, he worried about expanding eligibility for sealing drug offenses as violent crimes associated with drugs spiked. Finally, Governor Scott commented that it contradicted legislation related to gun safety and the expansion of background checks.

H.655 attempts to follow up on a compromise suggested by the governor to resolve these concerns. Governor Scott announced, 

“To address these concerns, my administration proposed a uniform, simplified system of sealing – rather than erasing – criminal records. This approach would eliminate undue consequences related to housing, job, and education for those Vermonters who are not repeat offenders while also ensuring access for law enforcement and criminal justice purposes as well as for background checks necessary to ensure public safety and security.”

Because expungement makes it as if the records never existed, agencies, landlords, and employers will find it challenging to access expunged convictions. Expunging these records can also pose challenges for law enforcement and government agencies. Though sealed records remain, accessing them has proven difficult. As such, certain circumstances may allow interested parties to access the information. Accessing these records requires specific purposes, such as government-performed background checks.

Though the House has already approved H.655, it still awaits review from the Senate. Its future proves further uncertain, as it also needs the governor’s signature.

Disclaimer:

Information provided here is for educational and informational purposes only and should not constitute as legal advice. We recommend you contact your own legal counsel for any questions regarding your specific practices and compliance with applicable laws.

Source

The post Vermont Considers H.655 for Sealing and Expunging Records appeared first on JDP.

Cincinnati’s city council will consider a proposal to expunge certain criminal records. Former City Council member Tamaya Dennard suggested the proposal, hoping to help individuals with criminal records better reintegrate into society.

This proposal would address expungement for records concerning specific city ordinance violations. Council Member Denard also has a criminal record, accepting money for votes and facing arrest in 2020. She served time in prison for the offense and worked as the Center for Employment Opportunities director. This center is an agency that helps people with convictions find jobs. Since then, she commented on how she had the opportunity to re-enter society and acquire a successful career after returning.

As such, Council Member Denard questioned why others could not have similar success. She presented the proposal to the Law and Governance Committee, hoping to help individuals with low-level crimes on their records. If enacted, it would change how Cincinnati treats people with criminal backgrounds. For example, it would automatically expunge warrants and court no-shows after seven years have passed. It would also repeal mandatory sentencing for some convictions. Finally, she hopes it would end Cincinnati’s policy of not hiring individuals for five years after a conviction.

One of the council members, Scotty Johnson, supported studying the expungement plan’s viability. Furthermore, he stressed the importance of helping people trying to reintegrate into society. Prosecutor Melissa Powers also expressed support for the proposal. She voiced interest in developing these policies. Furthermore, she approved giving individuals second chances and the chance to be productive community members.

However, some have voiced disapproval of the proposal. Those disapproving of it believe that leniency on criminal records may reduce punishment’s deterrent effect. In response to this argument, Council Member Dennard stated that losing the ability to obtain housing or a job is already a punishment. As such, she feels it becomes a question of how much punishment individuals should get.

In one response to the “Part of deterrence is punishment” claim, Council member Dennard replied, “Is it punished to no end? Or at what point do you show mercy and say, ‘Okay, you suffered enough…'”

Enacting this proposal could help many individuals with eligible criminal records. The most significant aid comes from automatically expunging these records. This change would open more opportunities for jobs and housing for many individuals. It would also improve the ability of people with criminal records to get a job with the city by no longer refusing to hire them for five years after a conviction.

Disclaimer:

Information provided here is for educational and informational purposes only and should not constitute as legal advice. We recommend you contact your own legal counsel for any questions regarding your specific practices and compliance with applicable laws.

Source

The post Cincinnati City Council Considers Expungement Proposal appeared first on JDP.

Connecticut’s legislature is considering a bill concerning prospective tenants’ criminal records. House Bill 5242 (HB 5242) would prevent landlords from reviewing criminal records past a specific time frame when determining a potential tenant’s eligibility. Though it passed the Housing Committee, it still awaits further decision-making.

The bill would limit landlords’ ability to consider potential tenants’ felony criminal convictions. It bars landlords from considering criminal record information with history greater than three years old. However, HB 5242 offers limited exceptions when deciding whether to rent to a potential tenant.

For example, HB 5242 has a carve-out addressing individuals with convictions that could significantly impact a community’s safety and well-being. This carve-out includes rental applicants with convictions for producing methamphetamines in public assisted housing. HB 5242 also makes an exception for those with a lifetime requirement to register as a sex offender.

Landlords cannot consider most convictions older than three years when deciding whether to negotiate or make a rental agreement. Furthermore, HB 5242 requires landlords to commit to further decision-making when making adverse leasing decisions based on criminal histories. As such, they must provide the rental applicant with a notice of the intended adverse decision. HB 5242 also requires landlords to consider related mitigating factors when reviewing the convictions.

Landlords must consider several mitigating factors before committing to a decision. Such examples include the nature of the convictions, the surrounding circumstances, the time that has elapsed since the conduct, the individual’s age at the time, any evidence of rehabilitation, their employment status, and any tenant history before/since the conviction. These housing providers must give the rental applicant at least five business days to respond to the notice. The response may include any mitigating information about the conviction to help prove the applicant’s eligibility as a fitting tenant. 

HB 5242 has received considerable support and opposition from different groups, as represented in a long eight-hour session with Connecticut’s Housing Committee. This discussion covered measures that would significantly impact tenant evictions, how one addresses a potential tenant’s criminal background, and notices of rent increases. The bill related to evictions over lease expirations is Senate Bill 143. 

Several critics argued that these bills negatively impact property rights and could complicate landlord-tenant relationships. More have commented on increased liability risks due to HB 5242’s limitations when considering criminal backgrounds. Despite these debates, the Committee voted to advance the bill. As a result, the legislation will now head to the floors of the House and Senate for further discussion.

Disclaimer:

Information provided here is for educational and informational purposes only and should not constitute as legal advice. We recommend you contact your own legal counsel for any questions regarding your specific practices and compliance with applicable laws.

Source

The post Connecticut Advances Criminal History Bill HB 5242 appeared first on JDP.

Jan 20, 2024

The post City In Virginia Eases Expungement Process for Criminal Records appeared first on JDP.

August 16, 2023

The post New York City Council Considering Fair Chance Housing Act appeared first on JDP.

July 25, 2023

The post California Expungement Law Erases Millions of Criminal Records in First Six Months appeared first on JDP.