House Judiciary Committee continues debate on S.12 sealing/expungement bill as law enforcement raises access concerns

The House Judiciary Committee on April 20 continued testimony on S.12, a bill that would change when and how criminal records may be sealed or expunged in Vermont, with the Attorney General's Office voicing support and law‑enforcement officials urging limits and clearer rules for investigatory access.

The Attorney General's Office, represented by Assistant Attorney General Todd Dale, told the committee it supports the bill’s goals. "The Attorney General's Office supports this reform bill," Dale said, adding that sealing and expungement expand access to education, housing and jobs and can help people reengage in community life. Dale noted the office runs two to four expungement clinics a year and has seen the practical effects of clearing records for individuals.

But law enforcement witnesses said the bill as drafted raises operational and legal concerns. Sheriff Mark Anderson, of Wyndham County and president of the Vermont Sheriffs Association, described a range of documents that law enforcement creates and relies on — citations, affidavits, discovery checklists, arrest custody records and use‑of‑force reports — and warned that removing routine access to those records could hamper agencies’ ability to defend against civil claims and to investigate ongoing criminal activity. "The lifeblood of law enforcement's paperwork" is central to agencies' ability to investigate and respond, Anderson said, calling the loss of those records "concerning." He urged the committee to preserve a practical pathway for law enforcement to consult sealed files when necessary.

Chief James Pomprayant of the Berlin Police Department said sealed records are most likely to be relevant in complex, high‑priority investigations, such as coordinated trafficking or violent‑crime probes, and that the courts and state's attorneys provide checks on prosecutorial use of such material. "We need current and relevant intelligence to better gauge how safe our plan is going to be," Pomprayant said when describing planning for warrants and tactical operations.

Testimony focused heavily on two draft bill features: (1) a narrow exception that would let agencies "use" sealed records for criminal‑justice purposes while constraining general "access," and (2) how the bill treats sealed information when the state faces civil suits or when federal partners request records.

Assistant Attorney General Dale urged a modest change to the text on litigation access, noting civil claims against the state can arise and the Attorney General's Office sometimes needs records to defend or to negotiate early settlements. He pointed the committee to a provision in the draft (page 25, lines 8–10) that addresses use in litigation and asked for language allowing timely state access, particularly in quickly resolved cases.

Sheriff Anderson and Chief Pomprayant both described operational burdens if officers must seek a court petition or search‑warrant‑style authorization before even viewing sealed records in their own possession. Anderson said the petition requirement can be "a few hours' worth of paperwork" for limited investigatory yield and could clog courts and prosecutors with requests that are often used to check a small fact or an address. Law enforcement witnesses favored an approach that would permit case‑by‑case review and post‑hoc judicial oversight (for example, notifying a court that a sealed record was opened and requesting a ruling on whether derivative information can be used), rather than pre‑authorization in every instance.

Witnesses also discussed the statewide records system and data governance. Testimony described VCIC and Valcour (the state's law‑enforcement records and dispatch system) as already capable of partitioning or locking records so sealed files are accessible only to specified custodians. Anderson said the FBI's CJIS security policies and VCIC audits are part of the current controls and that the Valcour governance board authorizes or denies external access requests. He said federal access is possible when permitted by the governance arrangements and that some federal requests (for example, Customs and Border Protection) have been denied in the past by the governance board.

The Department of Motor Vehicles, represented by a deputy commissioner, said DMV is neutral on the bill and that existing DMV processes can handle expungements and seals. DMV staff flagged a technical point: commercial driver's licenses and permits were excluded in earlier drafts and that omission can raise separate federal regulatory issues.

Committee members and witnesses discussed "exigent" exceptions for immediate public‑safety needs (for example, Amber Alerts or active safety threats) and how those would be operationalized and audited after the fact.

No formal votes occurred during the session. Committee members asked staff to gather drafting language and to follow up with witnesses, including the Attorney General’s Office and Valcour/VCIC governance representatives, on specifics about litigation access, federal queries, and the mechanics of partitioning sealed records. The committee scheduled further testimony from additional witnesses in subsequent meetings.

The bill remains under active review; lawmakers asked staff to prepare draft language responding to the Attorney General's litigation access concern and to clarify whether the petition requirement for use would apply in exigent situations or when files are already in a law‑enforcement agency's custody.