Senate Judiciary reviews S.12 on sealing and expungement; sheriffs warn of heavy workload, bankers seek carve-outs for financial felonies

The Senate Judiciary Committee on Feb. 12 heard testimony on S.12, a bill that would change how criminal records are sealed or expunged. Law-enforcement officials told the committee that expungement work is labor-intensive and asked the committee to preserve limited access to sealed records for criminal-justice purposes. Banking representatives urged carve-outs or longer waiting periods for financial felonies to protect customers and reduce institutional risk.

Mark Anderson, sheriff of William County and president of the Sheriff’s Association, said the association had no formal position on S.12 but offered operational feedback. “The sheriff's association has no position on the bill itself,” Anderson said. He described criminal-record files as an index of arrests, charges and convictions and said agencies are moving from paper to electronic submissions but that many electronic records are scanned images and not text-searchable. “Expungement is incredibly labor intensive,” Anderson said, citing the need to review incident reports, affidavits, body-worn-camera footage and dispatch audio for each order.

Anderson told senators he rarely runs criminal-history checks roadside and gave one example from his 20-year career when an on-the-spot record check mattered to determine whether a person in possession of a firearm was a felon. He said sealed records are sometimes needed in “very high level” investigations, and described routine protections—audit logs and access restrictions—in the state records-management systems for authorized users.

Kim McMannes, with the Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs, said the department appreciates the committee’s work and urged lawmakers to preserve existing access to sealed records. “We would ask that the committee, leave that access as is,” McMannes said, adding that access can matter for law enforcement, victims and defendants. McMannes asked the committee to remove what she called the bill’s “10-year superseal” provision in section 7,607(c), page 25, lines 15–18, and said the department prefers sealing dismissals (with or without prejudice) to expunging them because sealing simplifies a complex administrative process.

McMannes also told senators that the state has processed “about 70,000 plus expungement or sealing orders in the last five years,” and said a uniform statewide policy describing when and how sealed records may be accessed could reduce risk and increase clarity for agencies that only rarely need to use sealed records.

Representing the banking industry, Chris Dealey, president of the Mount Bank Grooms Association, told the committee his association’s human-resources committee reviewed S.12 and is concerned about several felony categories listed in the bill that relate to financial crimes. “The concern is we will not have a clear picture of the individual that is sitting in front of us,” Dealey said, arguing that banks need access to certain convictions because employees may handle customer accounts, wire transfers or other sensitive financial data.

Dealey proposed three options for lawmakers: remove certain financial crimes from the qualifying list for sealing; lengthen the waiting period beyond seven years (Dealey suggested 10–15 years, with 15 preferred); or allow limited, mechanized access for financial institutions to records of specific felonies while preserving sealing for the broader public.

Committee members asked whether national research on recidivism should guide the list of qualifying felonies or the length of waiting periods; senators said they would revisit the bill’s qualifying-offense list during markup. Committee staff told witnesses that a revised draft of S.12 removing the superseal provision would be circulated and that senators planned another opportunity for review; one senator indicated a vote could occur in March.

Discussion vs. decision: testimony on Feb. 12 was advisory. No formal committee vote on S.12 occurred during this hearing. Committee staff printed a new draft of S.12 during the session and signaled additional deliberations and possible policy language to govern access to sealed records.

Next steps: The Senate Judiciary Committee will review the new draft and consider options raised by law-enforcement and banking witnesses, including (1) retaining limited access to sealed records for criminal-justice purposes, (2) preserving sealed treatment for dismissals, and (3) revisiting the list and timing for qualifying felonies. The committee scheduled further consideration ahead of a planned markup.