Public workers who commit crimes are barred from future public employment when the infractions involves their jobs — even if they later have their records expunged, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled on October 27, 2010.
"When a person is convicted of an offense that 'involves and touches upon' that person's public office, the obligatory forfeiture of public employment provisions of (state law) are triggered," Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto wrote for the majority. Those provisions say a person "shall be forever disqualified from holding any office or position of honor, trust or profit" in the state.
The case involves a former detective, identified in court papers only as D.H., who worked in the Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office from 1985 to 1999. In June 1999, according to the decision, a local employer called and asked D.H. to conduct a criminal background check on a job applicant. D.H. checked the Criminal Justice Information System and found the prospective employee did have an arrest record.
The following month, representatives from the prosecutor's office and State Police questioned her, and she was charged in September 1999 with the disorderly persons offense of purposeful and unauthorized access of a computer. D.H. pleaded guilty and agreed to forfeit current and future public employment, the decision said.
Considering D.H.’s "unblemished past" and agreement to give up her job, a trial judge sentenced her to pay $110 in costs and penalties.
In 2008, D.H. sought to have her conviction expunged, according to court papers. In granting her request, a trial court noted "the purpose of expungement is the elimination of the collateral consequences of a criminal conviction imposed upon an otherwise law-abiding citizen," determined forfeiture of public employment was a "collateral consequence" and voided that disqualification as well.
The state lost an appeal when an appellate panel sided with the trial court. On October 27, 2010, New Jersey's highest court agreed D.H.'s record should be expunged, but a majority of five justices found her disqualification from public employment is a separate matter that stands. Justice Virginia Long dissented, saying the expungement also should have voided D.H.'s disqualification from public employment.
D.H.’s attorney, Robert Donaher, said his client committed "a minor infraction." He said the computer lookup was done for a "former member of law enforcement."
"She no longer has a criminal record," Donaher said, noting D.H. had no plans to seek a public-sector job.
"From a practical standpoint, she's vindicated."
Judge Edwin Stern did not participate in the case.
Source: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/10/nj_supreme_court_rules_record.html
> Posted by Records Removal Services. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.
Showing posts with label Survival with a Criminal Record. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Survival with a Criminal Record. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Texas Assistant Principal suspended for failure to disclose criminal history
Arlington, TX: A school assistant principal in Texas who exposed alleged wrongdoing in the school that employed him may wind up losing his job due to nondisclosure of his own past.
A UPI report dated 10/07/2010 relates the story of Joseph Palazzolo, an assistant principal with Arlington Heights High School currently on paid suspension. Palazzolo told UPI that administrators with the school board that has jurisdiction for Arlington High are recommending he be dismissed from his job because Palazzolo, it is alleged, failed to disclose his criminal history when he applied for his job in 2007.
That criminal history, according to the UPI report, includes a guilty plea to a federal misdemeanor charge in 1997 for failure to pay past-due child support, according to court records cited by the Star-Telegram newspaper of Forth Worth.
For his part, Palazzolo said that in his view the campaign to have him terminated from his Texas labor and employment was borne from his efforts to blow the whistle on alleged wrongdoings.
> Posted by Records Removal Services. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.
A UPI report dated 10/07/2010 relates the story of Joseph Palazzolo, an assistant principal with Arlington Heights High School currently on paid suspension. Palazzolo told UPI that administrators with the school board that has jurisdiction for Arlington High are recommending he be dismissed from his job because Palazzolo, it is alleged, failed to disclose his criminal history when he applied for his job in 2007.
That criminal history, according to the UPI report, includes a guilty plea to a federal misdemeanor charge in 1997 for failure to pay past-due child support, according to court records cited by the Star-Telegram newspaper of Forth Worth.
NOTE: Though federal crimes are no more serious than State crimes, the federal government has failed to "catchup" to the States in criminal record seals, expungement, or non-disclosures laws. Currently the federal government offers no way to seal or expunge federal criminal records; only a pardon VIA the United States Pardon Attorney may be an option.
For his part, Palazzolo said that in his view the campaign to have him terminated from his Texas labor and employment was borne from his efforts to blow the whistle on alleged wrongdoings.
> Posted by Records Removal Services. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Judge agrees to expunge record of doctor accused in hospital deaths
A judge agreed Thursday to erase the public criminal record of a doctor arrested but never charged in the alleged killing of patients at a sweltering, flooded New Orleans hospital following Hurricane Katrina.
State District Judge Calvin Johnson also said authorities must keep secret all materials put before the grand jury that last month declined to indict Dr. Anna Pou.
Pou called Johnson's decision to expunge her public record "a huge step in helping me get by life back together."
Pou was arrested last year. Attorney General Charles Foti accused her of giving lethal doses of drugs to patients at Memorial Medical Center in Katrina's aftermath, but a grand jury refused to indict her on July 24.
At least 34 people died at Memorial after the Aug. 29., 2005, hurricane, many from dehydration during the four-day wait for rescuers. Katrina had flooded the lower floors of the hospital, knocked out electricity and left patients and medical personnel stranded for days.
> Posted by Records Removal Services. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.
State District Judge Calvin Johnson also said authorities must keep secret all materials put before the grand jury that last month declined to indict Dr. Anna Pou.
Pou called Johnson's decision to expunge her public record "a huge step in helping me get by life back together."
Pou was arrested last year. Attorney General Charles Foti accused her of giving lethal doses of drugs to patients at Memorial Medical Center in Katrina's aftermath, but a grand jury refused to indict her on July 24.
At least 34 people died at Memorial after the Aug. 29., 2005, hurricane, many from dehydration during the four-day wait for rescuers. Katrina had flooded the lower floors of the hospital, knocked out electricity and left patients and medical personnel stranded for days.
> Posted by Records Removal Services. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)