Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice Expungement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate adopts amendment to House Bill 21 aimed at clarifying 'single criminal episode' for expungement certificates
Summary
Senators adopted Amendment No.2 to HB21 to give the Bureau of Criminal Identification (BCI) an objective standard for identifying a 'single criminal episode' when issuing certificates required to open expungement proceedings. Sponsors said the change aims to reduce arbitrary denials by BCI; some senators urged more time to digest the amendment and its effects.
The Senate adopted Amendment No.2 to House Bill 21 on Wednesday, a change intended to clarify when multiple charges constitute a single criminal episode for purposes of obtaining the BCI certificate that starts the expungement process.
Senator Hilliard, who moved the amendment, said the change does not grant expungements but gives BCI an objective standard for issuing the certificate applicants must have before pursuing expungement in court. "You can't even start an expungement until you get a certificate from BCI," he said, arguing the amendment would reduce administrative denial of certificates and allow eligible applicants to move forward.
Other senators raised concerns about whether the language is too narrow, giving examples of separate incidents (checks written in separate places/times) that might be grouped as a single episode under the amendment. Senator Bramble asked that the amendment be circulated for more review; the sponsor said the amendment had been circulated previously and that he did not intend to rush the process. The Senate adopted the amendment and then circled the bill for third reading so members could finalize language before final passage.
The action modifies pretrial or administrative processes but does not itself grant or deny expungements; final eligibility and expungement determinations remain judicial. Supporters said the amendment is intended to make the administrative gatekeeping step less subjective; opponents urged further review of the statutory language and asked for more time for stakeholders to digest potential effects.
