Senate Judiciary begins review of S.12 overhaul of sealing and expungement rules

The Senate Judiciary Committee on Jan. 20 began a multiweek review of S.12, a bill that would remake Vermont’s process for removing or restricting access to criminal history records.

Michelle Childs of the Office of Legislative Counsel gave the committee an early walkthrough of the draft, explaining that the proposal largely converts a prior expungement regime into a system centered on "sealing" records and defines which offenses qualify for sealing and under what timetable. "Expungement meaning that, basically the record is gone," Childs told the committee. "If a record is sealed, then it still exists somewhere, and then depending on the law and the different areas of law, there can be access to that sealed record for certain purposes."

The bill draws two different eligibility pathways. One covers offenses that are no longer crimes (for example, prior convictions for conduct the Legislature has since decriminalized). The other covers qualifying offenses defined in the bill: generally misdemeanors are eligible unless specifically excluded, while only a limited set of lower-level felonies would be eligible. Childs said the draft treats "qualifying crimes" as those at or below two years of potential incarceration (misdemeanors) except those listed on the bill’s exclusion list; certain family- or violence-related offenses and sex‑offense categories remain ineligible.

Under the proposal’s timing rules discussed in the committee, a person may petition to seal a qualifying misdemeanor three years after completing the sentence and conditions; qualifying felonies require seven years; and misdemeanor DUI records would require a 10‑year waiting period. Childs illustrated the timing with an example: "So it would be essentially five years from the time of conviction to be able to petition for the sealing of the misdemeanor" if the original sentence included two years of probation. For felonies, she gave a hypothetical in which a four‑year sentence would mean an 11‑year wait before petitioning (four years plus seven).

Committee members pressed staff on edge cases. A senator asked whether crimes that become felonies solely because of a dollar‑value threshold (for example, property crimes that cross a monetary threshold) are covered by the exceptions; Childs said the bill lists specific "designated felony property offenses" and committee staff would check whether particular conduct such as mischief that becomes a felony only because of valuation is captured by the draft language.

The bill would make the prosecuting office—either the state’s attorney or the attorney general—the respondent in sealing petitions. If both parties stipulate, courts could grant sealing orders without a hearing. Childs also advised the committee that certain federal rules impose constraints (for example, records affecting commercial driver’s license checks) and the draft retains carve‑outs to avoid conflicts with federal law.

A central policy choice in the draft is who may access sealed records and for how long. Childs summarized the bill's access rules: the person who is the subject of the record and that person's attorney would have indefinite access; certain criminal‑justice agencies, prosecutors, and other enumerated entities could access sealed records for specified purposes for a 10‑year window after sealing in many cases. "The other entities would be able to access sealed records for specific purposes for a period of 10 years once the record is sealed," she said, noting DUI rules lengthen that timeline in practice.

Several committee members voiced concern that replacing expungement (records destroyed) with sealing (records retained and sometimes accessible) might not deliver the same practical relief for job applicants or license seekers. "If it's not a crime, I think it should be completely off the record," said a senator during the session. Another committee member advocated for a narrower set of exceptions or a "super sealing" option that would restrict access to only the subject and counsel after a long period without subsequent offenses.

Childs noted additional areas the committee must resolve: the bill carries over a current‑law provision (now phrased for expungement) that precludes acting on a sealing petition if there is a separate criminal charge pending; the committee must decide whether that bar should remain. The draft also includes administrative‑rules language intended to require agencies that receive access to sealed records to adopt rules for handling them; that language triggers a process for legislative review under the state’s rule‑adoption procedures.

Next steps: committee members said they expect to spend the coming weeks on detailed line‑by‑line review and to request sentencing and case duration data from the state’s crime research group to align waiting periods to actual sentence lengths.

The committee did not take formal action on S.12 during the Jan. 20 session; members directed staff and counsel to provide more data and to return with targeted proposals.