Committee hears debate over S.12 changes to sealing, expungement and judicial review

For the record, Kim McManus, Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs, told the House Judiciary Committee that her office supports moving many records from expungement to sealing but asked the committee to change the bill's wording from "access" to "use." "We support this bill, but we only if that language is changed," McManus said, adding that sealed records can be vital "for law enforcement, but for victims, for police departments in general, for their government records."

The bill under discussion, S.12, would expand the categories of records that are sealed rather than destroyed. McManus said the proposal would seal dismissals, acquittals and findings of no probable cause in many cases and that sealing — rather than expunging — preserves records that can later be needed for criminal justice purposes, civil litigation or professional discipline. She warned that a proposed "superseal" that would automatically expunge sealed records after a fixed period undercuts the point of sealing. "We don't think that there is a time limit on when folks may need these records," she said.

Tucker Jones of the Department of Public Safety told the committee the policy shift away from routine expungement "is going in the right direction," arguing the state has faced practical problems when records were destroyed. "We have civil litigation in which plaintiffs come to sue the state and the state doesn't have the records relating to the incident," Jones said. He and other witnesses raised two operational concerns: (1) how law enforcement will continue to rely on sealed records for investigations or officer safety, and (2) whether the bill's proposed judicial-review mechanism can be implemented without overwhelming courts or preventing time-sensitive uses in investigations.

A central point of contention was semantic but consequential: McManus and Jones said the bill's current use of the word "access" could be read to bar routine law-enforcement uses of sealed records, whereas the departments intend to preserve law enforcement "use" of records for defined criminal-justice purposes such as investigation, apprehension, or officer safety. McManus described a possible compromise modeled on search-warrant practice: an ex parte petition to a judge that the judge may grant upon a showing of reasonable suspicion that the sealed record "contains information that will aid and promote criminal-justice purposes." She said the petition could be handled quickly, without a full 30-minute hearing in routine cases.

Witnesses also discussed special categories of files: deferred-sentence and diversion records. Jones said data provided to him showed a substantial number of deferred sentences and diversion referrals in recent years and urged the committee to consider how those records are treated. He told the committee that between 2018 and 2024 his data pull identified 891 deferred domestic-assault cases, 153 other serious-assault entries (as reported), 764 assaults and about 2,500 other offenses for the period cited. He also said 6,406 cases were referred to diversion from 2020 to 2024, including 586 DUI referrals. Jones warned that some diversion and deferred-sentence records can be relevant to later prosecutions or to professional-discipline proceedings.

Committee members asked whether sealed records could be used at bail or sentencing hearings and whether allowing investigative use without a pre-use petition could risk later suppression challenges; McManus said she did not expect routine suppression so long as law enforcement acted for criminal-justice purposes and followed the legal standard. The panel also discussed "exigent circumstances" language and whether that term needs a statutory definition; witnesses suggested courts' existing case-law understanding could be sufficient.

No formal votes or amendments were recorded in the transcript excerpt. Several participants asked staff to return with operational details and counts; Director Whelan of the Vermont Criminal Information Center was cited as a necessary adviser to ensure any final bill can be implemented. The committee indicated it would continue the discussion in forthcoming hearings and work with agencies on the drafting of "access/use" language and on practical implementation for VCIC and local agencies.

McManus summarized the departments' position near the end of her appearance: the departments support sealing over expungement in principle, want law-enforcement uses preserved, and seek a narrow, well-defined judicial review mechanism rather than a blanket restriction on inquiry into sealed records.