House Judiciary Committee reviews draft 1.2 of S12 to expand sealing of criminal records

The House Judiciary Committee reviewed draft 1.2 of Senate Bill 12 during a committee meeting, as Office of Legislative Counsel Michelle Childs summarized changes aimed at how petitions for sealing criminal history records are filed and who must receive notice when a court issues a sealing order.

The draft restructures and clarifies multiple sections of law governing sealed records, including who must receive notice of sealing orders, exceptions for using sealed records in court and discovery, and changing several existing expungement provisions to sealing. Committee members and staff flagged practical questions about agency access, forms that ask applicants to disclose criminal history, and possible trade-offs for expanding sealing eligibility.

Major changes described by Michelle Childs, Office of Legislative Counsel, include new language requiring courts to send sealing orders to any entities identified by the petitioner and to entities that must receive notice under subdivision 7607(a). "You'll see there that shaded language ... is the court is to issue the petitioner an order of sealing and provide notice of the order to all entities provided by the petitioner and all entities required to receive notice pursuant to the specific sealing provision in 7607(a)," Childs said.

The draft reworks the exceptions that allow use of sealed records. Childs explained the introductory rule that a party seeking to use a sealed criminal history record in a public court proceeding must notify the court before disclosure and the court will decide whether the record may be used. The draft preserves specific exceptions (notably the provisions listed as subdivisions 1, 4 and 7) and clarifies access for criminal justice agencies: "criminal justice agency can use those sealed records for criminal justice purposes," Childs said, noting the language reverts in part to what the House passed previously.

The draft distinguishes access standards for defense attorneys who are not covered by the criminal justice agency definition. Childs noted that defense attorneys who are not part of an agency defined as a criminal justice agency would need to file a petition to access sealed records under the same standard set out in the Senate language. She also raised that a defense attorney employed by the Defender General's office might qualify under the criminal justice agency provision depending on the office's functions, creating different access standards for government-employed and private defense attorneys.

On discovery, the draft adds that the Attorney General and the state's attorney must disclose information contained in a sealed record when required by discovery obligations; Childs said the addition also makes clear the person who is the subject of the sealed record must comply with discovery requirements. "I think originally it just said the state's attorney's office shall disclose ... AG wanted to be added on there and also make sure that the person who is the subject of the sealed record would also have to comply," she said.

The draft changes several provisions labeled "expungement" into "sealing": current statutory processes that allow petitions to expunge records for people who were 18 to 21 at the time of the offense will remain a petition process but will be restructuring from "expungement" to "sealing." Childs said the current practice is already petition‑based and the draft keeps that approach. The draft also proposes converting deferred‑sentence expungements (where records are currently expunged upon successful completion) to sealing instead of expungement.

Committee members raised several operational concerns. One recurring point was that many state agency forms ask applicants whether they have a criminal record and that some applicants inadvertently disclose sealed records on those forms. A committee member suggested adding language on state forms clarifying that sealed (or expunged) records do not need to be disclosed; Childs said she will draft suggested language for state forms and run it by members. Committee direction included moving several witnesses to a Thursday hearing to provide testimony on these and related issues.

Members also discussed the policy trade‑offs the bill presents. Childs flagged the removal of last year's 10‑year "super seal" restriction in the Senate language and said she expects pushback; she indicated the committee might consider limiting the set of felonies eligible for sealing (for example, excluding a list of especially serious offenses) as a potential compromise to broaden sealing elsewhere. No formal vote or amendment was adopted in the session summarized in the transcript.

The committee scheduled additional testimony and indicated staff would circulate revised drafting and proposed language for state forms and for diversion statutes where "expunged" appears. Committee members said they will ask witnesses to comment on access standards, discovery implications and potential limits to sealing eligibility.

The discussion was technical and focused on statutory drafting and implementation questions rather than on a final policy vote. Committee staff and counsel will circulate a new draft incorporating the committee's requested clarifications and will solicit testimony from agencies and other stakeholders at an upcoming hearing.