Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Records Sealing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Deputy defender general opposes replacing expungement with sealing in S.12; cites data‑breach and reentry concerns
Summary
The deputy defender general told the Judiciary committee that a proposal to replace expungement with record sealing would reduce benefits for people with prior records, increase data‑breach risk, and complicate retroactivity and record‑management; the office urged retaining expungement or adopting broader protections from a prior draft (S.299).
A representative identified as the deputy defender general told the Judiciary committee that his office opposes a bill that would favor sealing records over the current expungement system.
“We oppose the bill,” the deputy defender general said, summarizing the office’s view that Vermont’s existing expungement system works and that replacing expungement with sealing would create more harms than benefits.
The witness said expungement effectively removes records from routine access, leaving only a controlled index for narrow uses such as federal security‑clearance checks or immigration matters. By contrast, sealing retains records online and requires prolonged retention, which the witness said makes them a more attractive target in the era of frequent data breaches. “Keeping data online for long periods of time is just a way to guarantee that it eventually winds up out there in the world,” the witness said, citing recent compromises of judicial dockets and other government records.
The deputy defender general argued expungement aids reentry: studies show people who receive expungements have higher subsequent earnings and lower recidivism in multiple analyses, he said, and expungement can have demonstrable benefits for employment and income. He recommended the committee consider last year’s S.299 as a starting point if it wants to expand sealing protections; that prior bill included automatic sealing provisions and a broader scope, he said.
The witness also described administrative complications: because many Vermonters have already accrued eligibility for expungement, any change that is nonretroactive would force the state to maintain parallel systems for both sealing and expungement for years. “Right now the way expungement works is you have to file a petition, and there's plenty of thousands of people who are eligible who have to file a petition,” the deputy defender general said. He cautioned that consolidating to sealing alone would not eliminate the need for an expungement track for existing eligible people.
Committee members asked questions about offense lists and income studies; the witness agreed to return with a chart showing the differences between the bills’ lists of eligible offenses and cited multiple studies (Michigan and others) reporting income gains after expungement, noting estimates vary by study.
Ending: The committee paused further debate to schedule follow‑up; the witness offered to return to provide comparative charts and additional detail about retroactivity and record‑management implications.
