Nevada committee hears bill to automatically seal arrest records after dismissals and acquittals

Assemblymember Jovan Jackson introduced Assembly Bill 291 on March 6, 2025, telling the Assembly Judiciary Committee the measure would “streamline the record sealing process” for people arrested but not convicted, and allow petitioning to seal individual post‑conviction charges that state law already makes eligible.

The bill would change Nevada’s record‑sealing statutes so that when a court dismisses charges or a defendant is acquitted, the court could immediately order those arrest records sealed; the measure also creates a process for selective (partial) sealing of qualifying convictions. Supporters said the change would reduce months of delay and financial cost for people who have not been convicted, while opponents urged caution about the bill’s effects on prosecutions, public safety, and law‑enforcement access.

Why it matters: Advocates said AB291 would help people regain access to employment, housing and professional licenses when charges are dismissed or a person is found not guilty. Jason Fisher, a record‑sealing attorney at the Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada, told the committee that under current practice his clients often wait about six months to receive a court order and up to a year to have records actually hidden from background checks, and that the process can cost $50–$100 for records (and far more if private counsel is required). ‘‘When somebody runs a criminal background check, the crimes that are sealed will no longer appear on that record,’’ Fisher said.

Supporters in the hearing included public defenders, civil‑rights groups and community organizations. Paloma Guerrero of the Clark County Public Defender’s Office described AB291 as a narrower version of past “clean slate” proposals and said it prioritizes people whose charges were dismissed or who were found innocent. Witnesses including Angela Knott (Washoe County Public Defender), Kayla Maese (ACLU of Nevada) and Shelby Swartz (Battle Born Progress) described practical hardships for people who must navigate the current process after a dismissal, citing lost jobs, housing and professional opportunities.

Opponents included the Nevada District Attorneys Association, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and other law‑enforcement groups. John Jones of the Nevada District Attorneys Association said the bill as written would require courts to seal dismissed records in a way that could prevent prosecutors from later refiling charges or presenting dismissed matters to a grand jury. ‘‘This bill requires a court to seal that record,’’ Jones said, adding that under Nevada law sealing ‘‘means the act is legally deemed not to have occurred’’ and could remove prosecutorial options in cases where victims later cooperate or additional evidence emerges.

Several committee members raised questions about distinctions between dismissal, prosecutor declination (denial) and acquittal, and about timelines when prosecutors may refile. Fisher and other defense witnesses explained differences: the bill aims to automate court sealing after judicial dismissals or acquittals but does not change statutory limits that apply when a prosecutor declines to file charges; in those decline/denial cases the statute of limitations must run before sealing in some circumstances.

Legal nuances and testimony: Carly O'Krent and Jonathan Norman, representing legal‑aid stakeholders, and Fisher referenced a Nevada Supreme Court case (Finley) and existing statutes—NRS 179.245 (convictions) and NRS 179.255 (dismissals)—that shape current sealing practice. O'Krent told the committee the amendment would remove a provision that forced petitioners to go to multiple courts in some circumstances, which had prevented some people from qualifying for sealing under the earlier statutory scheme. She acknowledged that eliminating the provision could reduce the information available to judges and other decision‑makers, but said it would correct what the court had described as an impractical barrier for petitioners.

Operational concerns: Law‑enforcement and local government witnesses said AB291 could create staffing and technical burdens. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department representative Joshua Martinez estimated his agency receives about 1,600 sealing requests yearly and would need to query numerous systems to comply. Opponents also warned that automatic sealing could limit investigators’ ability to detect patterns in repeated domestic battery or other offenses where victims initially decline to cooperate.

Sponsor response: Assemblymember Jackson said he was open to amendments that preserved law‑enforcement access for investigative purposes while protecting employment and housing uses of background checks. He reiterated the bill’s intent to reduce the bureaucratic and financial burden on people cleared of charges.

What’s next: The committee did not hold a final vote in the hearing. Lawmakers and stakeholders signaled further negotiations on amendments to balance public‑safety and prosecutorial needs with advocates’ goals of reducing barriers for people not convicted.

Less critical detail: Witnesses described specific practical costs and timelines for sealing petitions, cited gaming‑board exceptions that already allow the Nevada Gaming Control Board to view sealed records, and offered examples of local impacts including threats to occupational licensing and housing access for individuals with dismissed charges.