Senate Judiciary hears S 12 authors on shifting Vermont from expungement to sealing of criminal records

The Senate Judiciary Committee on Jan. 30 heard more than an hour of testimony on S 12, a bill to replace the current expungement regime with a sealing-based system for criminal records in Vermont.

Tim Leers, executive director of the Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs, told the committee that the office is overwhelmed by orders under the current system: “As of April 2024 … between April 2018 and April 2024, there have been 70,225 sealing and expungement orders. In 2023, there was 22,248 orders … and we have 31 administrative staff. So we are completely buried,” he said.

The department and prosecutor-witnesses said the current practice of destroying records after expungement complicates prosecutors’ discovery obligations and can harm victims and defendants. “When those records are expunged and destroyed, we may be aware of the record, but we cannot disclose the record,” said Kim McManus, appearing for the Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs.

Why it matters: Witnesses framed S 12 as a middle ground that would remove the stigma of older, eligible offenses while preserving a sealed record that the criminal justice system can access for investigation, prosecution and sentencing. Testimony invoked Brady/Giglio disclosure obligations and federal and state discovery rules, arguing that fully erased records can leave prosecutors unable to comply with constitutional and statutory duties to disclose exculpatory or impeachment evidence to defendants.

Key points from testimony

- Scope and volume: Leers said the department receives tens of thousands of sealing/expungement orders and lacks staff capacity to process wholesale record destruction under the present system. Staffing and backlog were cited repeatedly as operational constraints.

- Sealing vs. expungement: Witnesses favored sealing over full expungement because sealed records remain retrievable for authorized criminal-justice purposes (investigation through sentencing) while preventing broader public disclosure. McManus said the change would “balance” removing stigma with preserving access when required for prosecutions, victim needs, civil cases or research.

- Brady/Giglio and discovery: The department warned that destroyed records can prevent disclosure of impeachment or exculpatory material that courts require. Witnesses described Brady/Giglio material as the broader body of evidence that must be disclosed to defendants and said sealing (rather than destruction) reduces the risk of violating discovery obligations.

- Temporal lookback: The bill includes a 10‑year period in which prosecutors and law enforcement could access sealed records; the witness panel asked the committee to extend that to 20 years. Leers said the department prefers no time limit but would accept parity with Title 23’s 20‑year DMV lookback if a limit is necessary.

- Operational and technical issues: Witnesses flagged the need to test whether the state’s record/dispatch systems (discussed as VCIC/Valcor in testimony) can implement a sealed-archive workflow. They offered to gather concrete examples of when sealed records are used in investigations and to consult VCIC on technical feasibility.

- Equity and scope of access: Senators pressed witnesses on whether roadside stops or routine traffic contacts would justify using sealed records. Witnesses and several senators raised concerns about possible disparate impacts, saying routine stops should not trigger access but that serious investigations or patterns of officer behavior might warrant retrieval. One senator proposed a process where law enforcement asks a state's attorney for access in complex investigations, rather than broad direct access at every traffic stop.

Committee process and next steps

No formal action or vote was taken. Committee members asked the Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs to (1) collect examples and anecdotes of when sealed records have been accessed for criminal-justice purposes, (2) consult with VCIC/Valcor on technical feasibility, and (3) continue negotiations on the proposed lookback period for access (committee discussion covered 10 versus 20 years). Witnesses said they support S 12’s general move from expungement to sealing but sought changes on the time limit and operational details.

Ending

Committee leaders did not schedule a vote during the Jan. 30 hearing. Staff said they would seek follow-up information from prosecutors, VCIC and other executive-branch offices to inform the committee’s deliberations on S 12.