Senate Judiciary reviews S 12; DMV says single-track sealing would not alter current practice

The Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony on S 12 during a committee meeting, where a Department of Motor Vehicles representative said consolidating the agency’s two sealing procedures into a single track would not change how the DMV handles sealed records.

Matt Russo, a Motor Vehicles Department representative, told the committee that “currently, DMV has 2 tracks or 2 procedures for expungement for seals. So it depends on what we get from the court, what procedure we use. Switching it to to a 1 track, of sealing wouldn't really change anything since we already have a procedure for that.”

Committee counsel Michelle asked about a separate provision in section 4 that adds an application date for traffic-violation records and how the DMV has implemented that change since it passed. “I was just wondering because there's an addition of the application date for the, traffic violation records in section 4 of the bill, and I was just wondering how you guys have been implementing or addressing that since it passed a couple of years ago,” Michelle said.

Russo replied that he would follow up with internal materials: “I will check-in with the questionnaire for details. I'm not sure of that.” He also reiterated the agency’s concern had been limited to commercial driver’s license (CDL) information, and said that the CDL provision had been removed from the draft under discussion.

A committee member referenced a Department of Children and Families (DCF) memo that mentioned a person named Dale and said online testimony indicated Dale sought broader access to sealed records. The member said the committee’s sense was to avoid broadening access. “My sense of the testimony from, from online discussions is that Dale additionally wanted, just generalized access to sealed records, but that the conversation of the committee, the sense was that we would be going down that track,” the committee member said.

Committee discussion focused on clarifying current practice rather than expanding access. One member summarized that two specific provisions under consideration appeared acceptable so long as they did not disrupt how agencies currently process sealed records. “That's what I'm thinking as well is trying to not disrupt current practice, but also clarify current practice so that there's no lingering questions or a disruption of how they do their job,” the member said, adding that they did not intend to “open the floodgates, regarding employment.”

No formal motion or vote on S 12 was recorded in the transcript excerpt. Committee members asked DMV staff to follow up with implementation details about traffic-violation record application dates and indicated they would not move to broaden employer access to sealed records at this time.