House Judiciary reviews S.12, a 36‑page bill shifting many expungements to sealing and tightening access rules

Montpelier — The House Judiciary Committee on April 15 reviewed S.12, a 36‑page bill passed by the Senate that would reshape how Vermont handles petitions to seal or expunge criminal history records. Michelle Child, legislative counsel, gave committee members a high‑level overview of the bill, which she said primarily converts the current mixed system into one that favors sealing, with a limited set of expungements retained for diversion, deferred sentences and offenses that are no longer crimes.

Why it matters: the bill changes when and how people can clear criminal records, who may see sealed files, and how law enforcement and licensing agencies may use sealed records. Committee members asked questions about federal limits for commercial driver’s licenses, how the Vermont Crime Information Center (VCIC) and NCIC would be notified, and practical access by police and prosecutors.

Child told the committee that the bill’s definitions treat a “criminal history record” as “all information documenting an individual’s contact with the criminal justice system,” and that the measure preserves expungement only in three cases: diversion, deferred sentences, and when the underlying offense is no longer a crime. “Expungement means the record is destroyed. So it’s burned. It’s shredded,” Child said, contrasting that outcome with sealing, which retains a record but restricts who may view it.

Eligibility and timelines - Misdemeanors: the default in S.12 is that almost all misdemeanors are eligible for sealing except a specified list that includes interpersonal violence and other enumerated offenses. A petitioner must wait three years after completing the sentence (including restitution) before filing for sealing, unless the respondent (the prosecuting agency) shows sealing would be contrary to the interest of justice. - Felonies: felonies are ineligible except for a defined subset (including certain property offenses recommended by the sentencing commission). Eligible felonies follow a 7‑year wait from completion of the sentence. - DUI: first‑offense DUI remains the longest waiting category; petitioning is set at 10 years from adjudication. - Young adult provision: the bill retains a special earlier pathway for people who were 18–21 at the time of the offense, shortening the wait to 30 days after sentence completion (this provision currently results in expungement in existing law; S.12 would make it a sealing process).

Petition process and roles - The statute remains petition‑based; the court will not apply sealing automatically in most cases. If the prosecutor and petitioner stipulate, the court may enter a sealing order without holding a hearing. The prosecuting authority is referred to in the bill as the “respondent.” - If a petition is denied (for example because restitution was not completed or the court finds sealing contrary to the interest of justice), the petitioner must wait at least two years before filing again.

Access to sealed records - The bill outlines a set of exceptions for who may access sealed records. VCIC and the FBI would still be able to retain and use sealed criminal history records for NCIC responses and firearms background checks. - Criminal justice agencies (as defined in title 20) and the attorney general’s office may petition the court and must show reasonable suspicion via affidavit that the sealed record may aid criminal justice purposes; the court may grant access after review. - Defense attorneys may also petition and must show that the sealed record may assist in representing a defendant. - Law enforcement access in exigent circumstances is explicitly allowed: officers may access sealed records when exigent circumstances compel swift action to prevent imminent danger to life, serious property damage, evidence destruction, or flight. Committee members probed whether that standard is too narrow for routine policing; sponsors said the language reflects the Senate Judiciary compromise.

Other clarifications and exceptions - Commercial driver’s licenses: multiple members pressed the committee about an explicit exclusion for CDL‑related motor vehicle convictions. Child said the DMV requested the CDL exclusion because federal commercial licensing rules limit what the state may conceal. - Discovery and prosecution: the bill states that prosecutors must disclose sealed records when required by discovery obligations; committee members indicated prosecutors will testify about how that will work in practice. - Agency records: the bill adds language to clarify that materials gathered by agencies such as DCF during civil investigations are department records and not automatically subject to sealing under this criminal‑history scheme. - Municipal violations: a separate section would allow municipal violations (for example parking or other local ordinance violations) to be expunged two years after satisfaction of judgment, subject to conditions.

Next steps and witnesses Committee members were told they will hear witnesses on the measure, including representatives from VCIC, the Department of Motor Vehicles, the Department of Public Safety, and practitioners including prosecutors and defense counsel. Child flagged that the bill as introduced reflects prior house and senate work and that the Senate already approved S.12 by voice vote; she said the senate judiciary committee earlier reported it out, 4‑1, according to her recollection. The committee also was advised that the bill creates or touches a special fund for DUI petition fees and that the Ways and Means Committee will probably review that fund language.

The hearing moved into scheduling and follow‑up: members asked for technical clarifications, with several questions reserved for the planned witnesses. Child and staff recommended inviting VCIC and DMV to explain how sealed records appear in state systems and what federal queries (NCIC/global entry/immigration checks) might still reveal.

What the committee did not do No vote on S.12 occurred at the April 15 hearing. The session was informational and focused on clarifying language and anticipated administration and systems impacts. Committee members repeatedly asked for practical demonstrations from VCIC, DMV and law enforcement before taking final positions.

Taper: Committee staff said more testimony will be scheduled; the measure will return to the committee after witnesses provide technical input and ways & means addresses the limited fund language.