[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6377891,"mediaKeyId","2138652-f649ef29a768ceda0c7c88d82bc1122b","parentId",2138652,"title","Senate Judiciary begins review of S.12 overhaul of sealing and expungement rules","audioSeconds",2800,"startMs",192000,"endMs",2992000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2138652-f649ef29a768ceda0c7c88d82bc1122b&start=192&end=2992","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2138652-f649ef29a768ceda0c7c88d82bc1122b/thumbnail_192000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6377891/Vermont/Senate-Judiciary-begins-review-of-S12-overhaul-of-sealing-and-expungement-rules","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6377891-0bbad61d35dffb2ed5173fe630604960/orig.mp4?Expires=1770922674&Signature=LqRHFQDDLeCv~JizfYV0eELA74A7cLtIVLEvEbbeHS1mwIviL5xgr0GE4x6MXeKNUX3dHyGmntXfR1reXlV61h1mt0gkhqqbuMfptK6hyzP3RmpgV4U3E~wXeNNRzCg-2WEOVnpw1YW48p8DiXs2gr9Iw~63DmDEiziUOAhy9fD2sFYFW1gu4Srft7tMIRApmJ6qThuxpYFdeVlZdxddV-OViLTn4y8Ei1llmoqvkejGfSuar0QRDu1BdxzF1NOB2NiUyAcHDxYfXM9Pkl8YWISbcsXm0M29yMGCO5UeSP1KVNf4EDrs5AfWjoksnNxZ7kOdpJO17YI~X6ASqD0QpQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Vermont Senate Committee on Judiciary","date","2025-01-22T14:47:42Z","article","The Senate Judiciary Committee on Jan. 20 began a multiweek review of S.12, a bill that would remake Vermont’s process for removing or restricting access to criminal history records.

Michelle Childs of the Office of Legislative Counsel gave the committee an early walkthrough of the draft, explaining that the proposal largely converts a prior expungement regime into a system centered on \"sealing\" records and defines which offenses qualify for sealing and under what timetable. \"Expungement meaning that, basically the record is gone,\" Childs told the committee. \"If a record is sealed, then it still exists somewhere, and then depending on the law and the different areas of law, there can be access to that sealed record for certain purposes.\"

The bill draws two different eligibility pathways. One covers offenses that are no longer crimes (for example, prior convictions for conduct the Legislature has since decriminalized). The other covers qualifying offenses defined in the bill: generally misdemeanors are eligible unless specifically excluded, while only a limited set of lower-level felonies would be eligible. Childs said the draft treats \"qualifying crimes\" as those at or below two years of potential incarceration (misdemeanors) except those listed on the bill’s exclusion list; certain family- or violence-related offenses and sex‑offense categories remain ineligible.

Under the proposal’s timing rules discussed in the committee, a person may petition to seal a qualifying misdemeanor three years after completing the sentence and conditions; qualifying felonies require seven years; and misdemeanor DUI records would require a 10‑year waiting period. Childs illustrated the timing with an example: \"So it would be essentially five years from the time of conviction to be able to petition for the sealing of the misdemeanor\" if the original sentence included two years of probation. For felonies, she gave a hypothetical in which a four‑year sentence would mean an 11‑year wait before petitioning (four years plus seven).

Committee members pressed staff on edge cases. A senator asked whether crimes that become felonies solely because of a dollar‑value threshold (for example, property crimes that cross a monetary threshold) are covered by the exceptions; Childs said the bill lists specific \"designated felony property offenses\" and committee staff would check whether particular conduct such as mischief that becomes a felony only because of valuation is captured by the draft language.

The bill would make the prosecuting office—either the state’s attorney or the attorney general—the respondent in sealing petitions. If both parties stipulate, courts could grant sealing orders without a hearing. Childs also advised the committee that certain federal rules impose constraints (for example, records affecting commercial driver’s license checks) and the draft retains carve‑outs to avoid conflicts with federal law.

A central policy choice in the draft is who may access sealed records and for how long. Childs summarized the bill's access rules: the person who is the subject of the record and that person's attorney would have indefinite access; certain criminal‑justice agencies, prosecutors, and other enumerated entities could access sealed records for specified purposes for a 10‑year window after sealing in many cases. \"The other entities would be able to access sealed records for specific purposes for a period of 10 years once the record is sealed,\" she said, noting DUI rules lengthen that timeline in practice.

Several committee members voiced concern that replacing expungement (records destroyed) with sealing (records retained and sometimes accessible) might not deliver the same practical relief for job applicants or license seekers. \"If it's not a crime, I think it should be completely off the record,\" said a senator during the session. Another committee member advocated for a narrower set of exceptions or a \"super sealing\" option that would restrict access to only the subject and counsel after a long period without subsequent offenses.

Childs noted additional areas the committee must resolve: the bill carries over a current‑law provision (now phrased for expungement) that precludes acting on a sealing petition if there is a separate criminal charge pending; the committee must decide whether that bar should remain. The draft also includes administrative‑rules language intended to require agencies that receive access to sealed records to adopt rules for handling them; that language triggers a process for legislative review under the state’s rule‑adoption procedures.

Next steps: committee members said they expect to spend the coming weeks on detailed line‑by‑line review and to request sentencing and case duration data from the state’s crime research group to align waiting periods to actual sentence lengths.

The committee did not take formal action on S.12 during the Jan. 20 session; members directed staff and counsel to provide more data and to return with targeted proposals.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Judiciary - 2025-01-22 - 9:45 AM","oneSentenceSummary","The Senate Judiciary Committee on Jan. 20 began reviewing S.12, a bill that would replace much of Vermont’s expungement law with a regime of sealed records and set eligibility windows and access rules for those records.","taxTitle","Judiciary, SENATE, Committees, Legislative , Vermont","taxId",47267,"location","Vermont","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6377877,"Sen. Hardy introduces S.9 to permit after‑hours orders for sexual assault victims",167,3609000,3776000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2138652-f649ef29a768ceda0c7c88d82bc1122b&start=3609&end=3776","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2138652-f649ef29a768ceda0c7c88d82bc1122b/thumbnail_3609000.jpg","/articles/6377877/Vermont/Sen-Hardy-introduces-S9-to-permit-afterhours-orders-for-sexual-assault-victims","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6377877-d83eb685145cd36e2a79c31b90055327/orig.mp4?Expires=1770922674&Signature=ehFpUhDNbA6g2dAJ1NBJw2GBEbxYUAbTP4bM4~GLO1hw3rI3mU5cz3R-Svl8QVfG1OY5FYEAA6oXTXfjH8Q74Q-1s5lBHvCqSZBzw4yY293HfhdNzDoR~ewdnMOeCAgOI-EtLQIVOLL832Gxy6c6ieoh9i8iRq~CmVrFHhqWZU76BT9P1QfLYwq4B-sNi8TyH1Nug7XqaNv9~OYz82QzjFXSg~dhNDQn6Ww8NPMrWADlhE-gLEOxNOtWP2UnA84qg6enuCFnWCilqrxFb6AHhxOuALyNcMcBBUtqQCM3FIEeiHSReSpceZjeeCm1UsjiQNX1CD0Zxj8UOfrjJG0clw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senator Hardy (Addison District) gave the committee a brief overview of S.9, a bill aimed at ensuring victims of sexual assault can obtain emergency court orders during off hours, including weekends and holidays.

\"This bill just directs the court administrator to establish procedures for a plaintiff to obtain an order against sexual assault at their regular court orders or on weekends and holidays,\" Hardy told the committee. He said the language mirrors existing statute for after‑hours Relief From Abuse (RFA) orders and was drafted in consultation with the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence and with input from judicial staff and a judge who recommended parallel procedures.

Hardy said the measure is intended to address gaps on college campuses and in communal‑living settings where victims may need immediate access to relief outside typical court hours. He described the bill as a technical alignment to give sexual‑assault plaintiffs the same after‑hours access currently available to victims of domestic abuse.

The committee did not take action on S.9 at the Jan. 20 meeting; Hardy said the bill will be available on the legislature’s website and that he and stakeholders would continue to coordinate language and implementation details with the court administrator.

","Senator Hardy said S.9 would direct the court administrator to establish procedures so victims of sexual assault can obtain protective orders during evenings, weekends and holidays, mirroring existing after‑hours processes available for relief from domestic abuse orders.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6377882,"Defender general outlines public‑defense staffing crisis and backlog pressures on courts",3776,3188000,6964000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2138652-f649ef29a768ceda0c7c88d82bc1122b&start=3188&end=6964","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2138652-f649ef29a768ceda0c7c88d82bc1122b/thumbnail_3188000.jpg","/articles/6377882/Vermont/Defender-general-outlines-publicdefense-staffing-crisis-and-backlog-pressures-on-courts","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6377882-439cab878157a82e9a1d560e602b0fb8/orig.mp4?Expires=1770922674&Signature=YHVtgwLE5glvkGKM4~r4ybGYs8rmhh5xJ-r~M4fifBaaIxnwRCMhey-i0cQHqSCa0Ub~k8A~5qt9e0TAFifldLBzMUEX~nq6CUgp17uqzKqIzOM3c1Ro-sCKpA8BbGzj5MC9Yjv0pIQxsPyqm8mfHEfdpCiClkbDFQSNa784oA0KN~2OZpm9az4mwWharNvJN1thBXBO9rqe2OZmUZ-cN-ZS9LC9QXTg5bsDEK4dN9xbnDLJFdKTkPxE5VIue~DazOx~gI97pnIMkz0g-OIFgxqiLffRTmgvi-DWnRGwcW~~DC9mRSKPggAJbAE9GX8IUBYw9c~MDnmbZZGpdCQ9Bw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The defender general briefed the Senate Judiciary Committee on Jan. 20 about mounting personnel challenges in Vermont’s public‑defense system and the operational effects of a large case backlog.

Introduced to the panel as the state’s chief public defender, the defender general described an office that combines in‑house staff and a significant roster of contract attorneys to handle conflict and overflow cases. He said the office employs roughly 100 state staff and manages about 100 outside contracts for conflict or overflow representation, and he cited a budget in the $27–28 million range.

He told senators that public‑defense hiring and retention have worsened since the pandemic: fewer law students are remaining in Vermont, many law graduates decline public defense work, and the national trend to the Uniform Bar Exam has not, in his view, increased the state’s supply of entry‑level lawyers. \"We don't have a defender system of new lawyers coming from the law school,\" he said, adding that many candidates leave after only 12–24 months. He said the office has relied on more experienced lawyers from out of state and on expanded contracting to fill gaps.

The defender general warned that court backlogs create cascading charges and resource strain. He said the backlog of pending criminal cases is far higher than before the pandemic and that the churn of unresolved low‑level cases contributes to additional charges for people who are on conditions of release. \"The bigger your backlog, the more charges build on charges, build on charges,\" he told the committee, arguing that prompt case disposition would relieve pressure on both the public‑defense system and corrections.

He criticized the expansion of remote court practices for arraignment and other procedural hearings, saying remote procedures have produced pro forma arraignments that reduce the quality of representation and complicate case management. \"Remote court ... is not an efficient process,\" he said, and noted that failures in assignment and administrative handoffs have left some people in custody without counsel for extended periods.

On resources, the defender general said the office has historically balanced budgets but now faces structural pressures: recruitment is difficult, and lawyers are entering the profession with high student debt, diminishing the appeal of lower‑paying public‑service roles. He asked lawmakers to avoid adding criminal penalties or detention expansions without matching investments in court capacity and defense resources.

The office did not present specific legislative asks on Jan. 20 but said it would continue to work with the committee and other justice stakeholders to identify sustainable staffing and case‑management solutions.

","The defender general told the Judiciary Committee that Vermont’s public‑defense system is struggling with recruitment and retention, falling law‑school pipeline numbers, and a growing case backlog that fuels low‑level reoffending. He urged attention to court processes and resources rather than adding detention penalties without capacity.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6377886,"Corrections commissioner cites staffing, health and remote‑court strains; seeks Wi‑Fi funding",2184,3046000,5230000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2138652-f649ef29a768ceda0c7c88d82bc1122b&start=3046&end=5230","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2138652-f649ef29a768ceda0c7c88d82bc1122b/thumbnail_3046000.jpg","/articles/6377886/Vermont/Corrections-commissioner-cites-staffing-health-and-remotecourt-strains-seeks-WiFi-funding","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6377886-840b57262b6a5b5bfb3e209e9fc7d44f/orig.mp4?Expires=1770922674&Signature=gB18Hcu57K8IkgpPvP4qEUzbD3R2p9U4qg9ApB30rk9KyEJvb5gkOjx-zBJPu6RSEDudeAjFta1MPZ-YvCFANpX0AGrywIp7LYZspKmhxWytujpBaw8M418Gao88gbvqPsyhxsE4GVGG-eBIWo1L4VUokucqP~4Tz73BgcxrrIePfWLukgxNmrTC1NAhc2vcpwcP3x42j5QUgI8-Rs8u3qoBSncS7ELLTRUWckL9I3lns44eEvHcKnEeE1mBduElXq20hJDN3e36bLGLchRfofTLjlEKoNq-ILUoGpI1YeFiKkS~eT5~1U6ihuwlypmaatwrzcP1w-WcAvE1IbHhXg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The commissioner of the Vermont Department of Corrections told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Jan. 20 that the state’s correctional system faces persistent staffing gaps, rising health‑care needs among people in custody, and operational stress caused in part by remote court proceedings.

\"Our primary priority has been for the last 3 years and will continue to be for the foreseeable future, our staff and resolving our staffing situation,\" the commissioner said, summarizing a multi‑year strategic plan. He said the department has about 1,100 staff, operates six in‑state correctional facilities (five for men and one for women), and oversees community supervision across Vermont. The commissioner described the department’s annual budget as roughly in the low‑hundreds of millions and said about 98% of it is general fund.

The commissioner told senators the department’s vacancy rate has improved from roughly 32% two years ago to about 17–18% today but that retention—keeping staff beyond the first year—remains the larger challenge. He said pay increases alone had not solved the retention problem and characterized the issue as driven by scheduling, working conditions and the demands of the job even where pay had been brought closer to regional comparators.

Health‑care costs and the complexity of care also have increased, the commissioner said. He told the committee that most people in custody have significant care needs: 68% are receiving medication‑assisted treatment for opioid use disorder and nearly all people in custody take prescription medication with an average of roughly five prescriptions per person. The department contracts for health services and said the constitutional right to health care imposes non‑discretionary costs.

Commissioner testimony emphasized operational bottlenecks created by the shift to remote court hearings during and after the COVID‑19 pandemic. He described remote court as inefficient for many jurisdictions and said the correctional system lacks staff whose primary job is to facilitate court appearances. \"Remote court, where court has been shifted into the correctional facilities, is actually slowing down the whole process, not speeding it up,\" he said, and added that staffing and scheduling constraints have led to longer stays for detainees waiting adjudication.

The commissioner asked the committee to consider a modernization priority: installing secure Wi‑Fi in facilities to expand education and reentry programming and reduce administrative workload. He said a heat‑mapping and design study shows implementation would cost about $3.5 million and that the department had sought federal community‑broadband funds without success. \"If we could get Wi‑Fi in our facilities, it would dramatically change our ability to offer services and assistance to the population and our staff,\" he said.

Committee members asked several operational questions: whether the system could absorb a projected 10–20% increase in detainees or sentences; how out‑of‑state placements factor into bed capacity; and the relationship between compensation and retention. The commissioner said the system currently manages in‑state bed capacity and retains a limited out‑of‑state contract (about 115 individuals historically at times) as a pressure valve, but he warned that additional detention policies or expanded penalties could outpace available staff.

The commissioner closed by reiterating that the department would return to the committee for more detailed briefings and that lawmakers should weigh carefully any proposals that would increase detention or sentence lengths without addressing staffing and operational capacity.

","Vermont's corrections commissioner told the Senate Judiciary Committee the department faces chronic staffing shortfalls, a sicker incarcerated population, rising detainee numbers driven by long court delays, and a $3.5 million Wi‑Fi request to expand services and reduce staff workload.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Senate Judiciary begins review of S.12 overhaul of sealing and expungement rules

Sen. Hardy introduces S.9 to permit after‑hours orders for sexual assault victims

Defender general outlines public‑defense staffing crisis and backlog pressures on courts

Corrections commissioner cites staffing, health and remote‑court strains; seeks Wi‑Fi funding