Assembly committee hears AB291 to streamline sealing of arrest records for dismissed or acquitted cases

CARSON CITY — The Assembly Judiciary Committee heard Assembly Bill 291 on March 6, a measure to streamline sealing of criminal records for people whose charges were dismissed or who were acquitted.

Assemblymember Jovan Jackson introduced AB291, saying the bill “streamlines the record sealing process” and “reinforces the principle of a clean slate.” Jackson said the measure would make sealing automatic when charges are dismissed or a defendant is found not guilty while also creating a process for selective (partial) sealing of individual post‑conviction charges eligible under state law.

Supporters, including criminal defense and reentry groups, told the committee the current process is costly and slow. Jason Fisher, a record‑sealing attorney with the Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada, defined sealing for the panel: “record sealing means that the person's criminal history is hidden from view when somebody runs a criminal background check.” Fisher said Nevada relies on sealing rather than expungement in part because the Gaming Control Board retains access to sealed Nevada records.

Public defenders and legal aid witnesses described the practical impact. Fisher said the current process often takes about a year from intake until a client can pass a criminal background check, with roughly six months to obtain a court order and further months to send that order to multiple agencies. He testified typical out‑of‑pocket costs for obtaining records run $50–$100, and attorney assistance can raise costs to thousands of dollars. Paloma Guerrero of the Clark County Public Defender’s Office and other defense witnesses said AB291 aims to cut bureaucratic steps for people who were never convicted.

Advocates framed the bill as an equity measure. Angela Knott of the Washoe County Public Defender’s Office described clients who lose jobs or housing while awaiting lengthy sealing steps after a dismissal. The ACLU of Nevada and reentry organizations urged passage, saying arrest records can produce lifelong barriers even when charges are never proved.

Opponents — led by the Nevada District Attorneys Association and several local law‑enforcement agencies — warned the bill, as written, would require courts to seal records on dismissal, which could prevent prosecutors from refiling charges or presenting offenses later in related prosecutions. John Jones of the Nevada District Attorneys Association told the committee that automatic sealing could remove information prosecutors and investigators rely on, particularly in domestic violence investigations where victims sometimes decline to testify and prosecution is later pursued when witnesses cooperate.

Law‑enforcement witnesses also raised operational concerns. Representatives from the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, and several city attorneys said the change would create substantial workload and cost for agencies that must locate and seal records across multiple systems.

Committee members pressed for clarifications about when sealing would occur, how the bill treats dismissals versus declinations to prosecute, and the effect on the ability to refile. Fisher and other legal witnesses explained that AB291 would amend existing Nevada statutes: NRS 179.245 (convictions) and NRS 179.255 (dismissals) were cited in testimony. Fisher said the bill would make sealing automatic upon court dismissal but that a declination by the district attorney (a denial) is governed by other rules and generally requires waiting until the statute of limitations expires before sealing unless the state agrees otherwise.

Several witnesses and the sponsor said they are open to amendments. Jackson told the committee he would consider language to preserve law‑enforcement access when necessary while protecting employment and housing outcomes for individuals cleared of charges.

No formal committee vote on AB291 was recorded during the hearing. The sponsor closed by repeating his openness to amendments and by restating the bill’s purpose: to reduce the time and expense for people found not guilty or whose charges were dismissed so they can seek employment and housing.

Ending: The committee took public testimony both in favor of and opposed to AB291 and indicated more work on amendments may follow. The hearing record shows extensive stakeholder disagreement on automatic sealing versus judicial discretion and on the operational burden on law enforcement and courts.