Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Records Expungement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would change set‑aside/expungement timelines and waiver of fines; advocates and OJD flag operational effects
Summary
House Bill 2639 would modify the process and waiting periods for set‑asides (expungements), lengthen waiting periods for contempt of protection orders, and allow waivers of fines; advocates for survivors and the Judicial Department highlighted survivor safety issues and operational impact on courts.
Supporters of House Bill 2639 told the committee on March 31 that the bill’s changes are intended to protect survivors of domestic violence and to make set‑aside rules fairer while the Oregon Judicial Department warned of large operational impacts.
The measure would prohibit courts from considering outstanding fines and fees other than restitution and compensatory fines when determining whether a petitioner has complied with a sentence, allow courts to waive financial obligations, clarify timelines for set‑asides after conviction reductions, require prosecutors to notify courts and petitioners when objecting to set‑aside motions, and set specific waiting periods for certain convictions and contempt findings.
Why it matters: Sybil Hebb of the Oregon Law Center urged longer waiting periods for convictions and contempt findings related to domestic violence, stalking and similar offenses, arguing that short expungement timelines make it harder for survivors to document patterns of abuse and access safety accommodations. “If records of that behavior go away, then it is difficult to make a showing,” Hebb said, describing consequences for survivors seeking workplace or housing safety accommodations and parenting‑plan protections.
Operational impact: Aaron Knott of the Oregon Judicial Department said reforms after Senate Bill 397 (2021) dramatically increased petition filings — Multnomah County filings jumped from 1,205 in 2021 to 10,769 in 2022 — and warned HB 2639 would create a large immediate caseload. Knott estimated roughly 435,000 cases could become immediately eligible for expungement under certain waiver provisions, of which about 222,000 would require time‑consuming partial set‑aside processing. He also highlighted a statutory 120‑day requirement for finalizing set‑aside orders in the bill that could shift court attention from other urgent matters.
Committee members pressed on timing and scope. Representative Tran noted the growing caseload of eligible people and argued for prompt action. The committee closed the public hearing on HB 2639; no committee vote was recorded during the March 31 session.
