Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Records Sealing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews S109 edits: task force scope narrowed, sealed‑record use loosened for criminal justice agencies
Summary
Legislative counsel reviewed a second draft of an amendment to S109 that removes relief from abuse orders from a task force’s study list and alters use and access rules for sealed records, including permitting certain uses by criminal justice actors and changing outcomes for deferred sentences.
Eric Fitzpatrick of the Office of Legislative Council told the House Judiciary Committee on May 9 that editorial and substantive edits to the S109 amendment were complete and described several substantive changes affecting task force scope and sealed records.
Fitzpatrick said the amendment removes “relief from abuse orders” from the list of issues a judicial representation task force will study; the task force will now focus on “improved legal representation for children and families who are involved in judicial or administrative proceedings concerning CHINS or substantiations of abuse or neglect.”
On sealed records and criminal‑justice use, Fitzpatrick said the draft eliminates the earlier requirement that an entity file a petition for access and instead establishes a process for courts to consider whether a sealed record may be used in open court or public filing. He said the change permits appropriate use of sealed information by criminal‑justice agencies and clarifies discovery obligations so defense counsel may also use documents where permitted.
The amendment also changes current law language about deferred sentences: where the law previously said a criminal record is expunged after successful completion of a deferred sentence, the draft now treats those records as sealed.
Committee members debated remaining items on the bill. Some members expressed concern about the set of property felonies listed for sealing and whether certain offenses should remain excluded or be moved to a 10‑year window. One member said defense counsel access parity addressed a core concern raised by prosecutors earlier in the process.
Fitzpatrick said the amendment will appear on the calendar for additional committee review and that, if needed, committee of conference procedures could address remaining differences with the Senate. The committee did not vote on the amendment that day; members agreed to take it up again ahead of floor action.
Committee members indicated they would consider amendments before floor action and that there is a likely committee of conference step if the Senate objects to the House changes.
