Records Removal Services - New Indiana Expungement Law

By: Records Removal Services

Until July 2011 people convicted of criminal offenses only had the option of a Pardon by the State of Indiana. Now, the Indiana Legislature passed legislation which Governor Mitch Daniels into law and effective July 01, 2011 allows non-violent offenders to have their criminal records sealed for misdemeanor and Class D felonies.

The new expungement law applies to people who people who after eight (8) years following the completion of their sentence to have their criminal records sealed.

If granted, an individual would not be required to disclose the conviction on employment applications or any other documents outside of the criminal justice system. Furthermore, it gives ex-offenders the ability to legally state on an application for employment that they have not been convicted or arrested for a crime, removing a large barrier in finding employment.

"Every legislative session, new laws pass that directly impact the lives of Hoosiers," said Jamal L. Smith, Executive Director of the Indiana Civil Rights Commission. "It's important that we share this information with people so that everyone has a clear understanding of their rights."

Even after a seal however, Records Removal Services must still update privately owned criminal databases.

> Posted by Records Removal Services. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.

Ohio Governor Ted Strickland Announces an Unprecedented Number of Clemency (Pardon) Decisions

Most of the Honorable Ted Strickland, Governor of the state of Ohio's favorable clemency decisions are grants of pardon (2005-2006: 29; 2007: 39) associated with comparatively minor and/or non-violent offenses. In every case, these pardons have been granted to individuals who have completed their entire sentence, usually many years ago. Virtually every case involves an individual who has not re-offended with the exception of traffic violations.

The individuals granted pardons today have demonstrated that they have been rehabilitated and have assumed the responsibilities of citizenship.

Former Governor Bob Taft did not act on 63 clemency requests from 2005 and 2006. So Governor Strickland's staff has been overwhelmed with reviewing all requests.

Ohio Governor Ted Strickland and Illinois Governor Pat Quinn have granted an unprecedented number of pardons.

PLEASE NOTE THAT EACH STATE IS SOVEREIGN WITH ITS OWN CONSTITUTION AND LAWS. IN GEORGIA FOR EXAMPLE, THE GOVERNOR HAS ABSOLUTELY NO PARDON AUTHORITY.

Ohio Governor Strickland has already begun his review of the 177 recommendations received from the Parole Board during 2008, after which he will turn to the 226 recommendations already received in 2009.

"I believe the clemency power should be used judiciously to give a second chance to those who have demonstrated they deserve it, and to modify the unusually long sentence that is out of sync with the norm," Strickland said. "I do not intend my clemency decisions to be seen as a determination that mistakes were made by judges, prosecutors, police officers or others in the criminal justice system. These decisions are another part of the overall system of justice that attempts to hold individuals responsible for their behavior while recognizing that ours is a society able to forgive, and welcome back, those who demonstrate they have earned, and can responsibly handle, society's mercy and forgiveness."

Ohio Governor's Constitutional Clemency Authority and Pardon Process:

The Ohio Parole Board and Governor Strickland consider applications for two forms of clemency: commutations and pardons. A commutation is the change of a legal punishment for the commission of a crime to a lesser punishment. A pardon is a complete forgiveness for a crime committed, eliminating all penalties and other legal consequences for the commission of a crime. An individual granted a full and unconditional pardon is deemed, by law, to have never committed the offense.

The Ohio Constitution authorizes Ohio's governor to grant pardons and commutations "for all crimes and offenses, except treason and cases of impeachment" (Article III, Section 11). Under Ohio law, the governor may only grant a pardon or commutation after the adult parole authority has received a clemency application and the parole authority has provided a written recommendation to the governor. The governor may follow or reject the parole authority's recommendation.

The governor's legal staff review of each parole board recommendation includes, but is not limited to: communication with the court and the prosecutor's office involved in the conviction; input and assistance from law enforcement officials, defense counsel, witnesses, victims and others who may have information relevant to the governor's decisions; consultation of official records from the offender's prosecution and appeals, the parole board's report and exhibits, petitions, letters, media reports and other documents or materials concerning the case.

The legal counsel prepares these findings for the governor's review, initially shielding their clemency recommendations at the governor's request. After a thorough and detailed discussion of the specifics of a given case, the legal staff presents their recommendation for or against clemency. The governor considers the totality of information presented for each application and decides whether to approve or deny clemency.

The governor's office estimates that in excess of 1,000 person hours have been spent reviewing the cases announced today.

> Posted by Records Removal Services. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.

Illinois Governor Pat Quinn grants a massive amount of pardons

Illinois Governor Pat Quinn granted pardons to 147 people convicted of low-level crimes in April 2010! The Governor granted 147 of 407 requested.

People who have been convicted of murder, violent crimes, sex crimes are typically automatically disqualified by both Records Removal Services and the Board of Pardons (sometimes called the Board of Pardons and Parole).

Since Governor Quinn was sworn into office on January 29, 2009, he has decided on 769 Petitions, granting a total of 321 Petitions.

Plus, Governor Quinn has his own pile, making the total pending Petitions to be around 2450, according to a spokesman in the Governor's Communications Office.

Governor Quinn is using his exclusive power to the benefit of the most deserving people, granting almost 42% of the Petitions thus far:

"Our society brands the felon with a Scarlet Letter for the rest of his or her lifetime. Essentially, once a felon, always a felon. This is wrong. This is not forgiveness. This is not mercy. Yes, people must understand that consequences come with illegal acts. But every person who was convicted of a crime, was sentenced and served a sentence, whether probation or prison. A lifetime punishment is harmful to society as a whole.

Rehabilitation must be encouraged in our society. The kid who gets caught selling dope at 18-years old should not be labeled a "convicted felon" for the rest of his life if he can prove he is a contributing member of society. If he has gone to school, purchased a home, raised a family, why should he continue to be punished?

A pardon gives the deserving person an opportunity to remove the "convicted felon" tattoo. The pardon allows for the deserving person to apply for a better job so that he or she can support his family. Rehabilitation must be rewarded." - Tamara N. Holder, Illinois Attorney, Legal and Political Commentator

Tamara N. Holder, Illinois defense and civil rights attorney/legal and political commentator contributed to his article from her commentator blog.

Pardon power in the State of Illinois is vested in the Governor, who is assisted by recommendations of the Prisoner Review Board.

NOTE:  With each U.S. state being sovereign however, each state has their own constitution and laws. In the State of Georgia for example, the Governor is prohibited from being involved in pardons and pardon power is vested exclusively in the Georgia Board of Pardons and Parole.

> Posted by Records Removal Services. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.

State of Wyoming and the federal government continue court battle

A federal appeals court in Denver has ruled against Wyoming in a lawsuit over a state law that seeks to allow people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence to regain their gun rights.

A three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday ruled that the procedure spelled out in Wyoming law fails to expunge the criminal record of people convicted of domestic violence.

The ruling is a victory for the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The agency had informed Wyoming that if it persisted in using the state law, the federal government would no longer accept Wyoming concealed weapons permits as a substitute for instant background checks for gun purchases.

Wyoming Attorney General Bruce Salzburg said Wednesday that he's unlikely to suggest that the state ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.

"We now have two federal courts that have rejected Wyoming's position," Salzburg said, adding that the Supreme Court reviews only a small number of cases.

Salzburg said his office planned to put out a statement on Wednesday advising people who have gone through the procedure to expunge their misdemeanor records of the court's decision. He said the ruling means that if such people now have guns, they "may be viewed by federal authorities as being in violation of federal firearms law."

The U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division in Washington represented the BATF in the lawsuit. Charles Miller, spokesman for the division, said Wednesday the office had no comment on the ruling.

The 2004 Wyoming law at the center of the lawsuit allows people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence to petition in state court to expunge their conviction and restore their gun rights. The law requires that petitioners must have completed probation, and it limits people to just one such request.

The Wyoming Attorney General's Office said last year that Wyoming courts expunged 63 misdemeanor convictions from 2005 through last October. Salzburg said Wednesday that only one person with an expunged record had gone on to receive a state-issued concealed weapons permit and said at least two other such applications are pending.

The BATF objected to a provision of the state law that specified that an "expunged" conviction would be kept by the state Division of Criminal Investigation and could be used to enhance penalties for future domestic violence convictions. The BATF said that conviction records weren't truly expunged if they were kept on the books for any purpose.

Federal law requires gun dealers to perform an instant background check of prospective purchasers through a national database unless the buyer has a state-issued concealed weapon permit. The BATF said Wyoming's law could allow people to get a concealed weapons permit even though they wouldn't qualify under federal standards.

Wyoming sued the BATF over its threat to reject all Wyoming-issued concealed carry permits as a substitute for background checks. In May 2007, U.S. District Judge Alan Johnson of Wyoming rejected the state's claims that the federal agency had arbitrarily rejected the state law.

The state's lawsuit has attracted national attention from groups on both sides of the gun-control debate at both the federal district court and appellate court levels.

Daniel Vice, senior attorney for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence in Washington said Wednesday his group regards Tuesday's appeals court ruling as a victory for public safety. The center had filed papers in court in support of the BATF's position.

"We should not make it easier for dangerous abusers to get firearms," Vice said. "And we've seen that domestic violence abuse cases are extremely dangerous when guns are involved."

The Gun Owners Foundation and the National Rifle Association had filed papers in court supporting the state's position.

Herb Titus, lawyer for the Gun Owners Foundation, said Wednesday his group is disappointed with the appeals court decision.

"We think it's wrong," Titus said. "We think this is a matter of state right -- that Congress intended that the states have the right to define expungement according to state policy and state purposes, and obviously, the 10th Circuit disagrees."

Mike Blonigen, Casper district attorney and president of the Wyoming Prosecutors Association, said Wednesday that his office has been advising people interested in petitioning for restoration of their gun rights that a decision on the case was pending. The state law requires prosecutors to review restoration petitions.

Blonigen said the Wyoming Legislature may choose to change the law to address whether conviction records are truly expunged.

"I think it's one of these situations, where if you're going to call it an expungement, it has to have all the characteristics of an expungement, and frankly this law didn't get there," Blonigen said. "You can't say you're going to take it away for these purposes, but not for these three purposes over there."

> Posted by Records Removal Services. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.

Minnesota Supreme Court upholds limits set on sealing criminal records

The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that district courts do not have the authority to seal criminal records beyond the courts themselves — a decision that may be bad for defendants but good for public-records advocates.

The case began in 1992, when a defendant identified as S.L.H. pleaded guilty to fifth-degree felony possession of cocaine in Robbinsdale. She was 20. After three years, the charge was dropped to a misdemeanor.

In 2000, a petition for expungement, or sealing, of her record, was filed, but the district court denied the request.

She tried again in 2006. S.L.H. argued that she was a single parent of four children and wanted to be better equipped to support her family. She explained she hoped to become a Head Start Teacher or a medical assistant — but neither job would be open to her without expungement of her criminal records.

Hennepin County District Court agreed. The court found in July 2006 that the benefit of expungement to S.L.H. outweighed the disadvantage to the public from eliminating her record and ordered all judicial records of the offense be sealed.

But the lower court also said it did not have the authority to order nonjudicial records sealed. That means that records at the state Bureau of Criminal Apprehension still would be open to anyone who wished to see them.

The Court of Appeals agreed with the district court, and Thursday's Supreme Court decision basically affirms that.

But the decision seems toleave room for interpretation, said Mark Haase, staff attorney for the Council on Crime and Justice, which filed a brief on behalf of S.L.H.

It says granting her access to employment is not "essential to the existence, dignity and function of a court" and that granting expungement of records outside the judicial branch is therefore not within its authority.

But the court seemed to suggest there might be cases that are, citing one in which charges were dismissed.

"The jury, so to speak, is not completely out on it," Haase said. "We don't want to discourage people from trying to get expungements, because the opinion is not clear. I want people who may have a shot at getting a remedy to pursue that."

He said it's vitally important for people to have a chance at a clean slate.

"The vast majority of people who are trying to get expungements are not serious offenders," Haase said. "They're trying to move on with their life; they can't get a job. Do we really want people to carry that with them and (have it) be a hindrance to getting employment and housing for that long?"

The Supreme Court points out, however, that the Legislature has determined, as outlined in the Minnesota Data Practices Act, that certain law enforcement data are public.

"The expungement of S.L.H.'s criminal records held outside the judicial branch would effectively override the legislative determination that some of these records be kept open to the public," the court wrote.

> Posted by Records Removal Services. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.

Restoring voting rights in Kentucky made easier

By John Cheves

FRANKFORT -- Felons who complete their sentences can get their voting rights restored more easily under changes to the pardon process announced Tuesday by Governor Steve Beshear.

Beshear said he will drop requirements for an essay and three character references, both imposed by previous Gov. Ernie Fletcher. He also will revoke a $2 fee.

Under the "barriers" placed by Fletcher, the number of felons whose voting rights were restored shrank from more than 600 a year to about 250 a year.

"This disenfranchisement makes no sense," Beshear said.

"It dilutes the energy of democracy, which functions only if all classes and categories of people have a voice, not just the privileged, powerful people," he said. Kentucky is one of the few states to deny felons voting rights after they complete their sentences.

About 129,000 Kentuckians can't vote because of a felony conviction, Beshear said. He said corrections officials will help interested felons with pardon applications before their release from prison or jail, and his office will process more than 1,500 applications left behind by Fletcher, plus 176 new applications filed since Jan. 1.

Jefferson Commonwealth's Attorney David Stengel, who joined Beshear at the Capitol for the announcement, said that Fletcher's pardon process was unfair.

Beshear said he favors House Bill 70, a proposed constitutional amendment that would automatically restore the right to vote to most felons. But he stopped short of saying he would throw the weight of the governor's office behind it. HB 70 has waited on the House floor for weeks while House leaders debate casino gambling and the budget.

"I'm urging over and over that it be called," said its sponsor, Rep. Jesse Crenshaw, D-Lexington.

Kentuckians for the Commonwealth, a non-profit group has been pushing HB 70 since January 2008.

> Posted by Records Removal Services. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.