ILNews

IBA: New Law Restricts Access to Criminal Records

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
gude-alex-mug Gude
Bell James Bell

By James J. Bell and Alex E. Gude, Bingham McHale LLP

There is a misconception among even the most educated of criminal clients that arrests, charges and convictions disappear off of one’s Indiana criminal record after a passage of time. This is not the case. Unlike other states’ expungement laws that allow the expungement of records after a period of good behavior, Indiana’s expungement laws can be unforgiving and generally preserve arrest and conviction records so that an arrestee’s great grandchildren can have a memento of their ancestor’s alleged and/or proven mischief.

In fact, Indiana’s expungement laws only apply to arrests and charges that do not result in convictions. They arguably do not even apply to acquittals. According to IC § 35-38-5-1, an expungement of records can only be obtained when the person is arrested but no charges are filed or under a limited amount of circumstances in which the charges are “dropped.” Theoretically, a person could be acquitted of murder by a jury in under ten minutes, the Judge and the prosecutor could apologize to the defendant for the injustice and the charge of murder would still remain on the individual’s record for an eternity. In all likelihood, in this economy, the record of such a charge would not be viewed by an employer as a “résumé builder.”

However, in the most recent session, the General Assembly took action to help some non-violent offenders shield potential employers’ access to some conviction records pursuant to IC 35-38-8. This law, which went into effect on July 1, 2011, states that

Eight (8) years after the date a person completes the person’s sentence and satisfies any other obligations imposed on the person as a part of the sentence, the person may petition a sentencing court to order the state police department to restrict access to the records concerning the person’s arrest and involvement in criminal or juvenile court proceedings.

IC § 35-38-8-3.

However, there are limitations to the applicability of this provision. First of all, it is only available to individuals who were (1) convicted of misdemeanors or Class D felonies that did not result in injury to a person; or (2) adjudicated a delinquent child for committing an offense that, if committed by an adult, would be a misdemeanor or Class D felony that did not result in injury to a person. IC § 35-38-8-2. This statute also does not apply to most sex or violent offenders. IC § 35-38-8-1. Additionally, to restrict access to the individual’s criminal history, the individual must not have been convicted of a felony after he or she completed his or her sentence, and the individual must have satisfied any other obligation imposed as part of the sentence for the crime the individual is attempting to restrict. IC § 35-38-8-4.

If all of the above requirements are met, then a petition should be granted. When a court grants a petition to restrict access, it is required to order all law enforcement agencies to prohibit the release of all records and information relating to the charges at issue to any individual without a court order. IC § 35-38-8-5. Further, once a petition is granted, an individual is legally permitted to state on an application for employment or on any other document that the individual has not been arrested for or convicted of the felony or misdemeanor recorded in the restricted records. IC § 35-38-8-7.

Finally, if a criminal case is dismissed, results in an acquittal or if the conviction is vacated, the defendant may file a similar petition to restrict access to the records. See IC § 35-38-5-5.5. While these laws are not a true “expungement” law, the General Assembly should be commended for helping those individuals who are seeking employment, are not a threat to the public’s safety and who have led a law abiding life for a significant amount of time.•

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Hardly an expungement
    Indiana law does not require law enforcement agencies to remove "police blotter" records, nor does it require Court Clerks to remove their records. Limiting expungements in this way renders them useless, since many private firms check local and county records for employers. The result is the crime will be discovered, and the applicant rejected. Expungement means just that, and should be required of all criminal justice agencies.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT