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.

Lawmakers in Oklahoma City have advanced two bills that would reform expungements and tenant rights: House Bill 3792 (HB 3792) and Senate Bill 1575 (SB 1575). HB 3729 would change the expungement regulations. In addition, SB 1575 would increase protections for tenants at risk of being evicted. 

To reform and improve tenant rights, HB 3729 expunges nonviolent misdemeanor criminal records. It applies to “any person who was convicted of a nonviolent misdemeanor offense, at least ten (10) years have passed since the date of conviction.” However, it applies if the person meets the following requirements: “has not been convicted of a felony, all fines, fees, and restitution if ordered by the court have been paid, and no felony or misdemeanor charges are pending against the person.”

Additionally, individuals eligible for an automatic expungement can file a petition instead. However, the bills also clarified that specific agencies can petition the court to unseal automatically expunged records. These agencies include the prosecuting agency, the arresting agency, the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation, and other interested persons or agencies. Passing this bill could help many people obtain more housing and employment opportunities.

The Senate Judiciary Committee recently approved SB 1575, which will undergo review by the full Senate. If passed, SB 1575 would add five days to the required period between filing an eviction case and the earliest allowable court date. As a result, affected parties would have at least ten days from the eviction case’s filing date to the court date. 

Furthermore, SB 1575 would increase the time tenants have from the day they receive a summons until the day they must appear in court. This timeframe has changed from three days to seven. However, the law included exceptions to the extension.

According to Senator Kirt, this bill will not hamper a landlord’s ability to address tenants who have damaged the property or committed criminal activities in it. Senator Kirt assured concerned parties that the extended timeline would not apply in such cases. Instead, it would “[put] in a statute what responsible, fair landlords already do when tenants can’t play.”

Interested parties have reviewed these bills and voiced support for these changes. For example, the executive director of the Oklahoma Association of Community Action Agencies approved of “modernizing Oklahoma’s eviction statutes.” According to the executive director, “This five-day extension can give renters the time they need to get another paycheck or make other arrangements to pay their rent, something that shorter notice periods can often prevent.”

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 Oklahoma Considers Reforming Expungements and Expand Tenant Rights appeared first on JDP.

Maryland’s General Assembly recently considered closing the state’s criminal expungement eligibility rules. Closing these rules could benefit many individuals. For example, it would help eliminate the obstacles those with criminal records encounter when obtaining housing or employment. 

The General Assembly will consider House Bill 0073 (HB0073) to close this gap. It would alter several definitions in the Maryland Code. HB0073 would clearly define the timeliness for expunging eligible state criminal records, starting when the individual completes a sentence.

This consideration comes after a 2022 case concerning those hoping for a clean slate. An opinion from the appellate court effectively denied expungement eligibility due to the interpretation of several terms. According to the General Assembly, changing several definitions has proven crucial for many people. 

One example concerns denied expungement petitions. In this example, an individual had to complete a year of supervised probation for misdemeanor theft and received a one-year incarceration sentence. However, the courts suspended his sentence. Furthermore, the individual violated his probation by having cannabis products in his possession. He received a four-day jail sentence for the violation.

The current law states that anyone with a misdemeanor conviction for theft may qualify for expungement five years after their sentence is satisfied. As a result, a person could file a petition for an expungement five years after they completed their sentence if sentenced to probation. The law also addresses those sentenced to incarceration. Such individuals may qualify to petition for expungement five years after their incarceration ends.

However, the Court of Appeals expressed differing thoughts. According to the Court, “satisfied” did not simply mean “completed.” The Court also explained how it interpreted “satisfied.” For example, if an individual’s probation closes unsatisfactorily, it is not satisfied. Therefore, the person will never become eligible for expungement.

Passing HB0073 would address the differing interpretation. It would define the time a person must wait to expunge their records. For example, regardless of satisfaction, individuals must complete their sentence before becoming eligible. This change would allow more individuals to qualify for expungement, as many have received denials due to the differing interpretation of “satisfied.” 

It would also help those who violated their probation. According to HB0073, violating probation will not automatically disqualify individuals. Though they can maintain eligibility, it may take longer to expunge their records. It remains uncertain whether HB0073 will pass. Maryland’s General Assembly will continue reviewing and debating the merits and wording for now.

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 HB0073 Could Change Expungement Eligibility in Maryland appeared first on JDP.

Minnesota legalized the recreational use of cannabis in 2023 when Governor Tim Waltz signed House File 100. In addition to legalizing the recreational use of marijuana, the bill provides expungement for certain cannabis-related convictions.

 What It Does

House File 100 details the types of convictions and offenses eligible for expungement. It also directs the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) to determine which individuals qualify for expungement. House File 100 also notifies the judicial branch concerning the qualified people at this stage. After receiving instructions to begin, the BCA can expunge their records for eligible individuals. Once completed, they must notify law enforcement agencies about the expungements. These agencies must seal the history immediately after notification.

Article 5 states, “The Bureau of Criminal Apprehension shall grant expungement relief to each qualifying person whose records the Bureau possesses and seal the Bureau’s records without requiring an application, petition, or motion. The Bureau shall seal records related to an expungement within 60 days after the Bureau sent notice of the expungement to the judicial branch pursuant to subdivision 2, paragraph (b) unless an order of the judicial branch prohibits sealing the records or additional information establishes that the records are not eligible for expungement.”

Analysis and Updates

A preliminary analysis estimated that 66,000 criminal records are eligible for automatic expungement. In addition, 230,000 felony records could qualify for automatic expungement. 

The BCA commented on House File 100’s expungement progress in a recently posted update. According to the Bureau, they were working with the Minnesota Judicial Branch to create a process for automated notifications. The Bureau and Branch have also researched ways to isolate traffic-related and non-parking petty misdemeanors. The BCA ended the statement with reassurances about collecting feedback on the notifications they must provide to law enforcement.

House Rule 100 will begin cannabis-related expungements sometime in mid-2024. In addition, the clean slate expungement process has a deadline of January 2025. Due to these timeframes, the BCA has begun expediting the process. Anyone reviewing the expunged criminal records will find comments about the information. According to the BCA, it will inform the person that the record may no longer contain illegal information in Minnesota.

Interested parties should remember that the expungement process takes time; not even the automatic method is instant. As such, employers may encounter background checks that include records that House File 100 will expunge.

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 Minnesota Provides Update on Expungements appeared first on JDP.

December 19, 2023

The post Delaware Supreme Court Rules Out of State Convictions Cannot Bar Expungement appeared first on JDP.

September 06, 2023

The post Begin Again Act May Expand Expungement Opportunities In Maryland appeared first on JDP.

July 25, 2023

The post Kentucky Expands Expungement Opportunities appeared first on JDP.