Banks, prosecutors and state attorneys spar over sealed‑record access, designated felonies in S.12

The House Judiciary Committee on May 7 heard competing views on draft language for S.12, the bill to expand sealing of criminal records. Business groups urged narrower or delayed sealing for financial offenses; prosecutors and the Attorney General’s office asked the committee to clarify how sealed records may be accessed and used in criminal justice proceedings.

Chris Steele, president of the Vermont Bankers Association, told the committee the association “does not oppose the ceiling of criminal records” but urged lawmakers to reconsider including certain financial crimes. Reading a list from the draft, Steele identified offenses he said touch the banking sector — forgery, identity theft, embezzlement, possession or use of credit‑card skimming devices and certain computer crimes — and warned that sealing those records could prevent employers from “mak[ing] an informed decision”: “If somebody's got a history of identity theft... is that the individual we want working with our institution? And if the criminal record is sealed, we won't know that.”

Steele proposed two remedies: remove the financial‑related felonies from the list of sealable offenses or lengthen the waiting period beyond seven years so employers have more time to assess applicants’ records. He stressed his members were not seeking an absolute ban on sealing but asked the committee to weigh industry risk when drafting the designated‑felony list.

On the other side, Assistant Attorney General Todd (for the record, identified himself to the committee) said the Attorney General’s office asked language be added to address civil‑litigation discovery: the department “requested the ability to access criminal and use criminal records in response to potential litigation against the state,” and he told the committee that the current draft’s changes to the discovery provision “appropriately respond to that.” He also proposed that discovery obligations be mutual so sealed records relevant to civil defense or prosecution disputes can be addressed in court.

Kim McManus, speaking for the Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs, asked for clearer procedure when prosecutors need to use sealed records in criminal proceedings that may occur with little notice, for example at arraignment or a request to hold without bail. McManus argued the bill’s current language would leave prosecutors uncertain about the standard the court will use to permit use of sealed records in filings or open court and suggested borrowing the explicit test used elsewhere in the draft: “the court may grant access upon the finding that the sealed records may be of assistance to the attorney.” She asked the committee to add a sentence making clear that, for criminal‑justice purposes, prosecutors should be allowed to notify the court and articulate the criminal‑justice reason for the records’ use before filing or reliance in open court.

Committee members and witnesses also debated which felonies should be sealable. Several witnesses and committee members proposed working chapter‑by‑chapter through the criminal code rather than relying on cross‑referenced lists such as “28 ESA section 301,” because the statutory lists are large and include offenses stakeholders consider inappropriate to seal (for example, certain arson, bribery, domestic‑terrorism or offenses involving children). Witnesses urged the committee to balance sealing policy goals against public‑safety and victim‑sensitivity concerns and to consider administrative workload for court staff if notice obligations to state entities are broadened.

The committee discussed operational details of the draft sealing process, including a proposed checkbox system for petitioners to identify which Vermont state entities (for example, the Office of Professional Regulation or the Secretary of State) may have records, and judicial workload if courts are required to send sealing notices to many entities. Judiciary witnesses warned broader notice language — “provide notice of the order to all entities provided by the petitioner” — could create an administrative burden unless narrowed to Vermont state entities or put the obligation to notify on the petitioner.

No formal action was taken on S.12 during the hearing. Lawmakers asked staff to refine the bill text to (1) clarify procedures for prosecutors’ use of sealed records in time‑sensitive criminal proceedings, (2) limit or better define which entities the court must notify, and (3) consider whether additional designated felonies should be added or excluded with stakeholder input.