Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Record Sealing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears AB291, which would bar courts from considering previously sealed records when deciding new sealing petitions
Summary
AB291 would prevent courts from considering previously sealed records in subsequent sealing petitions; supporters said it promotes rehabilitation while opponents warned it would unduly limit judicial discretion and could create public-safety gaps.
Assemblymember Jovan Jackson presented Assembly Bill 291 to the Senate Judiciary Committee, asking the Legislature to prevent courts from considering previously sealed records when evaluating petitions to seal other records.
Jackson told the committee that the bill would make sealing more workable for individuals with mixed criminal histories by allowing the courts to seal individual eligible convictions without having other unsealed charges automatically block relief.
The bill's presenter described the problem this way: under current practice, even if a specific conviction is eligible to be sealed, courts can still consider other unsealed records when deciding whether to grant sealing. He said the intent of AB291 was to allow “selective sealing of eligible records even if the others remain.”
Supporters framed the bill as a tool to promote reentry and rehabilitation. Tia Smith of ACLU of Nevada testified in support and said the change would reduce lifetime stigma and help people secure jobs and housing. A legal extern from the Clark County Public Defender’s Office, Harrison Epstein, told the committee the bill protects people who completed treatment or other diversion programs, noting that “Sobriety is not linear and this bill will play a part in acknowledging that fact.”
Opponents included the Nevada District Attorneys Association and the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association. John Jones, representing the District Attorneys Association, said sealing is “an act of grace” and warned that AB291 would remove judicial discretion to see the whole picture when assessing rehabilitation. “The ability to review an entire criminal history of a defendant is important and judges should have that discretion,” Jones told the committee. Jason Woodard of the Sheriffs and Chiefs Association backed the DAA’s concerns and said the ability for judges to see the full history improves case-by-case analysis and public safety.
Committee members probed the bill’s scope and its practical effect. Several members sought clarification about whether the reprint before the committee contained the original language the presenter described; the sponsor acknowledged there had been drafting changes, and committee members emphasized they were reviewing the reprint in front of them rather than the earlier draft.
No formal vote was taken at the hearing; the committee closed testimony on AB291. The record shows a split between reentry advocates and law enforcement/prosecutor groups about whether the bill would appropriately balance rehabilitation and judicial discretion.
Ending: The hearing on AB291 concluded with opportunities for public testimony; the committee made no decision during the hearing.
