Vermont Judiciary Committee weighs single-track sealing system in S.12, lawmakers seek guardrails for law-enforcement access

The Senate Judiciary Committee on S.12 heard testimony from state repository managers and prosecutors on whether Vermont should replace its two-track sealing/expungement system with a single-track approach and how to limit access to sealed records.

Jeff Walling, director of the Vermont Crime Information Center, told the committee that VCIC maintains criminal-history cycles (arrest, arraignment, disposition) and currently marks a record’s disposition as “sealed,” which prevents public and licensing queries from returning the sealed disposition but still shows the arrest and arraignment to authorized criminal-justice users. “An expungement is not an expungement depending on what state you're in or locality,” Walling said. “In Vermont right now, an expungement... it's as if it never happened. We delete all record of it. Sealing... it may only be used for specific notices, and it's not available to the public.”

The distinction matters operationally: Walling said VCIC processed about 65,000 sealing and expungement orders in the last five years and roughly 9,000 fingerprint-supported record checks over the same period. He also said the repository has “no real operational capacity” to restrict sealed-record access only to the subject; any restriction beyond the current disposition flag would require manual work or system changes.

Tucker Jones of the Department of Public Safety urged the committee to consider implementation timing and training if the law changes. Jones recalled a 2021 Joint Justice memo recommending simplification of the statute and noted field concerns about dismissed cases and deferred sentences being expunged quickly in ways that surprised prosecutors and regulators. “The problem… is where you have dismissed cases and deferred sentences, because you do not have the limitation of qualifying offenses,” Jones said, summarizing concerns from prosecutors and professional regulators.

Jim McManus of the Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs said large criminal-history checks that would reveal sealed records are rarely pulled roadside and most often occur after an arrest, when officers assemble a probable-cause affidavit or prepare a case for charging. “This idea that officers are using sealed records to make arrest determinations…it is incredibly rare,” McManus told the committee.

Committee members pressed witnesses on the practical effect of sealing vs. expungement. Several senators voiced two related concerns: (1) that law-enforcement personnel who see a sealed record cannot “unsee” it and may form biased impressions, and (2) that VCIC’s current access model routes law-enforcement users through a higher-access “window” that returns sealed dispositions while public and licensing queries do not. Senators discussed whether unsealing requests should require judicial sign-off or whether a statewide access policy and stronger audit and oversight processes would be sufficient.

No formal votes were taken. Committee members asked staff to pursue follow-up information, including: how often roadside criminal-history checks return sealed records; examples from chiefs and sheriffs about current agency practices for requesting sealed records; and estimates for the IT time and cost to build finer-grained access controls in VCIC. Several senators said they would favor a mechanism requiring court involvement to unseal records in many cases, or at minimum a clear statewide policy about when and how sealed records may be accessed and by whom.

Why it matters: changing sealing and expungement rules would alter the balance between rehabilitation and institutional memory. Expungement removes repository records entirely; sealing retains information for criminal-justice purposes and can affect subsequent investigations, hiring decisions by regulated professions and internal agency reviews. Committee members signaled interest in a single-track system only if it includes guardrails — such as judge approval or a clear statewide access policy — and realistic implementation timing for training and IT changes.

Looking ahead: committee staff will collect additional testimony from local chiefs and agency IT staff, and the sponsors and stakeholders will discuss draft language for S.12 that could require judicial authorization or a statewide access policy. Witnesses recommended allowing a modest lead time for implementation and trainings if the committee approves changes that require system or process modifications.