S.B. 303 Expungement Amendments: transcript

Yes, I will present to the sub on this one as well. Okay. That's okay.

Okay. Thank you Mr. Chair and committee. Um, so this bill addresses, um, the, the rules that are in place regarding expungements. And this bill started differently, but after negotiating with some stakeholders, what you're seeing in the sub is a modification where, um, it so currently, and there's somebody online who can correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not an expungement expert, but my currently, if you have a civil protective order, could be 20 years old, um, and your, your, uh, otherwise haven't had any new offenses, um, that old protective order can prohibit you from pursuing an expungement on an, on an older criminal case. And so what the sub proposes to do is, um, state that after 10 years of a civil protective order in place, after that 10 years passes, you would then be in a place where you are eligible to at least petition for an expungement. Um, I think with this sub, uh, my understanding is we have stakeholder support, but I'm happy to answer any questions. Any, any questions from the committee? I guess I have one. Um, gimme a second here. Um,

Yeah, that, I apologize. I can speak to that Mr. Chair. Yeah, go ahead. So that, that references the date the protective order would've been entered. So if it's before that date, um, that, or I think there was legislation that was recently passed, which, uh, makes this a rolling, or excuse me, a 10 year order, but I might wanna phone a friend on this one.

If we could promote Holly Peterson. She can probably speak to this better than I can.

You bet this, what that references is, that was the date, um, that a new law went into place where protective, civil protective orders, uh, could happen and abuse protective orders, um, for set to automatically expire prior to 2020. You know, a hearing was required, a motion filed before the court, before a protective order, um, would be dismissed. And in 2020 the law was changed to say that after three years, the protective order automatically expires unless the petitioner, um, you know, files with the court to indicate that there's been a violation or a reasonable fear of harm that still exists. Um, absent that, the protective order expires. And so in talking with fellow stakeholders today, um, you know, the, the, we came up with the plan that if, you know, a protective order is still in place oh, since that time, then it could still be a bar for expungement. But these folks that had the older protective orders that did not automatically expire, um, would no longer be a barrier because what we're finding is, you know, people have these old protective orders, they don't even know they exist, but they didn't automatically expire back in the early two thousands and such. And so, um, those are acting as a barrier for them to moving forward with any expungement currently.

who you represent, where you from? I'm Holly Peterson. I'm an attorney who has been practicing expungement law firm about 10 years.

Yeah. So on line 82 of the sub it and, and in the original bill as well, I don't know if it's the same line number, but it adds to min minor regulatory offense, unsanctioned, camping on state property, which I don't think was there before. Can you tell me why that was added? What, what kind of led to that?

Yes. So when, um, you know, someone applies for expungement as, you know, certain count cases count against them, and there is a provision in there that says that if there's a city ordinance or anything in the criminal code that's similar to a city ordinance in chapter 76 can be used against the person in counting their total number of offenses. There's been a few exclusions in the past to that intoxication, possession of tobacco by a minor, things like that, that are more minor, that have not been determined to be used against people in the count of expungement. Um, the, the bill proposes that, um, camping on public property as well as, uh, the vicious dogs also be excluded from that count, even though they are in chapter 76. They're not, you know, uh, to the same level as a lot of other criminal offenses. And so that's why post were added.

So help me understand how that works in practice. So, you know, because one of the things that I worry about is, you know, if there's, um, say there's 15 un unsanctioned camping violations within a year, um, can those eventually be used against the person as just a consistent problem or 15 vicious animal going, going at large citations a year? I mean, the vicious animal one in particular is one that worries me. And, you know, I'm trying to understand how that works in practice.

Sure. So how this would often come up is someone, um, you know, it wouldn't be eligible for expungement anyway if it was new, um, right. But if someone has a total level of offenses and they have an old vicious animal case on their record, even if it's, you know, 10 years old, it's going to add to their, the level or the number of cases they have that could disqualify them. Um, obviously through the expungement process, every case still goes through a prosecutor. Prosecutors still have the obligation to notify victims, things like that. And so of course, the judge ultimately makes the decision. There can be an, uh, objection, but, um, but the idea being that these more minor offenses, you know, shouldn't be treated the same as something like a theft, for example. Um, and that's, that's the idea behind those.

Okay. And then the other concern that I have is typically a criminal protective order or civil protective order is related to the safety of a third party where a court has adjudicated that somebody has placed another person in actual, or at least perceived fear of, you know, of, of harm that they, that they believed they were going to be harmed on multiple occasions in the case of a stalking injunction or something like that. And I'm, uh, you know, to some degree, uh, the criminal protective order, criminal stalking injunction and Civil protective orders, which include civil stalking injunctions. Um, there is some benefit to having that on the record to know that there has been a propensity towards stalking and civil protective orders and things like that. And I'm curious why we should a adopt a public policy that makes that less transparent moving forward at this point.

So the, this bill would not affect the criminal stalking injunction, criminal protective order, uh, language that has been in the Expungement Act for several years now, but it was just last year that the civil protective order barrier was added. Um, this wouldn't affect the ability to seal a protective order or expunged protective order or anything of that nature. What it does is that the, the current way the law is written means that if someone has an old protective order from 2002 and it, you know, there's been no violations or, you know, nothing going on for a very long time, but because those didn't automatically expire, if someone then wanted to expunge a case completely unrelated from 2010, that old protective order would make them ineligible to expunge the 2010 case, even if it's for, say, possession of marijuana. Um, totally unrelated, but the way the law is written now, that existence of the old protective order that didn't expire is a barrier to any conviction.

Okay. Um, so if it was a domestic violence case or something like that, of course they have to otherwise be eligible.

They would have to go through the process, um, through the prosecutor, through the judge, and victim notified all of that. But that will, protective order wouldn't be an automatic barrier. Now, if they have a newer one, the way that the sub is drafted, I believe that that the way it's written, if it's a newer one, it's still would and if it's still in effect. But these old ones that didn't expire are the issue.

Okay. Thank you so much. And if I Ms. May Mr. Chair just add a little more context to that.

This doesn't, this process doesn't state that they then get the case expunged. It simply allows them to bring the petition forward in front of the judge. The judge will then consider, um, other factors including whether an expungement is in the interest of justice. And so what we're talking about is the ability to even bring the petition in front of the court in the first place.

Does, does the judge, and I apologize, chair, uh, one, oh, go ahead. Quick question. Mm-hmm. Does the judge also determine like when it, when they're making their determination in the interest of justice? And some of this is my ignorance with regards to expungements, it's not an area that I'm in a lot. Um, does the judge also consider, uh, the value of the record in warning future people? And as, as part of the consideration with regards to the interest of justice?

Certainly, and that's a prosecutor's job as well, is to take a look at that and to provide notice for any potentially interested parties.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members of the committee. Aaron Jemison, director of Public Policy with the Utah Domestic Violence Coalition. Just wanted to thank the sponsor for working with us to make sure this bill landed, um, in an okay place in terms of, of some of the issues that have been raised here around, um, flagging any history of domestic violence or related charges for protective orders. We recognized that it was never intended to disqualify someone for petitioning, for expungement, for all of those other, um, possible records. And, um, don't have any concerns about the bill from the, from a victim safety perspective. Thank you.

You, chair. I am, uh, Mark Stewart Allen. I'm a state and county delegate up in Wasatch County. I'm grateful for the expungement process. I have the law weaponized against me. As I mentioned previously, uh, had an un adjudicated temporary order that has followed me for a decade. And, uh, the expungement process is arduous. Clean slate. Utah does a great job. But to have false allegations follow me for 10 years, in addition to the high fence that I had to try and scale with a clean slate Utah to so I could finally get a job at $13 an hour, um, is horrible. Um, a 10 year penalty is a lifetime, and I think probably leads to drug dependence, uh, homelessness and other social ills that, uh, we ought to be giving people a hand up instead of hitting them with a stick. I've been hit with a stick for 10 years and I'm, I'm done being hit with a stick. So I'm running for legislature, uh, to try and fix some of these things. People that are passing bills. Um, I appreciate the good intent behind them, but we need to look a little bit further and actually, uh, talk to people who've been through the system. I've been through the system. I've got a record that the, the, the court wants me to expunge and I'm trying to preserve it. Now. I've been trespassed for asking for the court records. Uh, state security director trespassed me from 11 courts for reporting federal funding fraud, ULCA fraud. So I'm living the other side of the experience, kinda like I'm in outer space. Can't believe what's going on, but I appreciate the intent. But to be branded with the Scarlet Letter for a decade, uh, I think leads to other problems. So thank you for your consideration. I don't know where I land on this other than let's give people a hand up instead of being so punitive in some of our legislation. Thank you. Thank

I'll move that we adopt for substitute to SB 3 0 3. That motion is in order. I'll take it.

Okay. Thank you. I'll make a motion that we pass out with a favorable recommendation for substitute Senate bill 3 0 3. That motion is in order.

No. I'll waive Thank you.

Thank you Mr. President. Mr. President, this bill deals with expungements. It ensures that an individual with a very old civil, uh, civil protective order can after 10 years petition the court for an expungement on a criminal case. It does not ensure expungement, but it allows them to bring that petition, um, in, in front of a judge for consideration.

You. I move that first substitute Senate bill 3 0 3. Be read for A third time. Thank you. And

Senator Vickers Baldy Aye. Lewin Aye. Brammer Aye. Bus comore Escamilla Fillmore Grover Harper Aye. Hankins Aye. Ipson Aye. Johnson Aye. Juab McKay? Aye. Mikel Milner Musselman Aye. Owens pitcher Plum Aye. Rebi Aye. Sandal Aye. Stevenson Stratton Bickers. Bill Weiler Aye. Wilson Aye. Winterton

Uh, this bill addresses the ability to petition the court for an expungement. Uh, it it allows individuals with old civil protective orders after 10 years the ability to petition that does not ensure that they get the expungement, but allows them to bring the question to the court that I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you Mr. President, I move this first substitute Senate Bill 3 0 3 pass.