Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice Diversion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews draft 2.1 of H 566, replaces expungement language with sealing procedures
Summary
Legislative counsel Michelle Chow walked the committee through draft 2.1, a strike‑all amendment to H 566, which replaces references to expungement with sealing procedures (pointing to 13 BSA 7607), restores adult diversion language to apply to criminal statute violations, and removes obsolete subsections; no formal vote was recorded.
The committee reviewed draft 2.1, a strike‑all amendment to H 566, during a brief walkthrough led by Michelle Chow of the Office of Legislative Council. Chow said the draft both narrows and clarifies how juvenile and adult diversion records are treated under the bill.
For the record, Michelle Chow said, “we are taking a draft 2.1, of a strike all amendment to h 5 66.” She explained the first substantive change appears in section 1, which addresses the juvenile diversion program. Under the amendment, the text that formerly referred to expungement is replaced with sealing and a cross‑reference to statutory procedures: “procedures for sealing the effective sealing and access to sealed records shall be as provided in 13 BSA 76 0 7.” Chow said that pointer is intended to capture both who may access sealed records (including law enforcement in specified circumstances) and the public‑facing effect of sealing (for most purposes there is no record).
Chow also described corresponding edits in section 2, which covers the adult diversion program. She noted an additional, small amendment will be added later related to a pilot in Tittany County. The amendment restores the adult diversion language so that it applies to violations of the criminal statute rather than municipal ordinance violations, returning the provision to its original formulation.
Chow said the draft also removes a now‑redundant subsection (f6) from section 2 that addressed expunging records that were already sealed, and strikes subdivision f8 in the adult section so that both the juvenile and adult provisions reference the same statutory sealing procedures.
An unidentified committee member asked Chow to work with Karen to finalize the precise drafting language rather than the committee attempting piecemeal edits on the floor; Chow agreed. The transcript records no formal motion or vote on the amendment during the walkthrough.
The committee concluded the item after a short discussion and moved on with no recorded final action during the segment.
Next steps: Michelle Chow will work with Karen to finalize the drafting language, and an additional amendment concerning the Tittany County pilot will be added later.
