Senate Judiciary reviews draft rewriting sealing and expungement rules; staff to amend language

The Senate Judiciary committee on Feb. 26 reviewed draft 4.2 of bill 12, which changes when criminal records are sealed or expunged, narrows who may access sealed records, and creates a shortened petition timeline for people who were ages 18–21 at the time of an offense. Committee members instructed legislative staff to refine language on procedures for law-enforcement and defense access, add cross-references to an existing civil-penalty statute, and circulate an edited draft.

Committee members said the revised draft treats most qualifying offenses as misdemeanors and, for conduct that is no longer criminal, provides for expungement rather than sealing. "For the offenses that are no longer crimes, those records would be expunged, not sealed," Michelle Child, legislative counsel in the Office of Legislative Council, told the committee as she walked through changes introduced in the new draft.

Why it matters: the bill alters the practical effect of recent decriminalization and changes how sealed criminal-history records are accessed by government actors and defense counsel. Committee discussion focused on balancing privacy for people whose conduct is no longer criminal with law-enforcement needs to investigate present crimes.

Most significant changes and committee directions

- Expungement vs. sealing: Draft 4.2 converts records for conduct that is explicitly "no longer prohibited by law" into expungement relief, while most other qualifying offenses remain eligible for sealing. Child said she adjusted section titles and cross-references to reflect the committee's prior policy decision to expunge records for decriminalized conduct.

- Law-enforcement and defense access: The draft separates access procedures. One subdivision allows criminal-justice agencies and the attorney general to apply for an "inquest" under the existing inquest chapter when reasonable suspicion exists that a sealed record will assist in solving a crime or apprehending a suspect. Another subdivision allows defense counsel to petition the court for access, with the court holding an ex parte hearing and granting access if the sealed record may assist the defense. Committee members asked staff to provide an alternate formulation using an affidavit to the court (similar to a warrant affidavit) rather than the word "inquest." Child agreed to prepare that change.

- Exigent circumstances and remedies: The draft permits law-enforcement access to sealed records under exigent circumstances defined in the bill as a "compelling need to act swiftly to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence, or to prevent the suspect from fleeing." Members asked what remedies follow if a sealed record is accessed improperly; Child said there is an existing civil penalty in statute of up to $1,000 for unauthorized access or disclosure and agreed to add a cross-reference clarifying that the penalty applies.

- Age‑18–21 fast track: The draft creates a specific pathway for people who were 18–21 at the time of the offense. Those qualifying persons may petition for sealing after 30 days have elapsed since completion of their sentence; the petition is evaluated under the same standards used elsewhere in the bill. Committee members confirmed that deferred sentences remain governed by existing law and will continue to result in expungement under current statute.

Committee direction and next steps

Committee members directed legislative counsel to: (1) revise subdivision 2 to permit an affidavit-based application (instead of or alongside "inquest") for court review demonstrating reasonable suspicion; (2) add or clarify cross-references to the civil-penalty provision that addresses unauthorized access or disclosure of criminal-history records; (3) renumber and correct technical cross-references created by moving sealing/expungement language; and (4) circulate an edited draft (page 1) before the next round of testimony. Michelle Child said she would make the changes, send the draft to editing, and provide an updated copy to committee members.

Discussion, context and outstanding questions

Members discussed whether the committee should move to a petitionless expungement system for records reflecting conduct that is no longer a crime. One member said they "feel pretty strongly that this should be petitionless," but the committee agreed it was not ready to adopt petitionless sealing broadly and that moving to petitionless expungement requires additional research to identify all offenses that have been decriminalized or moved into other enforcement tracks such as judicial bureaus. Committee members suggested the sentencing commission or judicial bureau records holders could help identify a comprehensive list of predecessor offenses.

Several judges (Judge Zonay and Judge Selene were mentioned) were expected to provide additional testimony in a future hearing. Committee members asked staff to invite those judges and to circulate the revised draft ahead of the next hearing so witnesses can respond to the near-final language.

Ending

No formal votes were taken during the session. The committee recessed to allow scheduled judge testimony in another hearing and planned to return after a short break. The staff-directed revisions described above are the committee's immediate output from the Feb. 26 review.