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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Applause, applause, applause ..... but, is this duty to serve the constitutional order not much more incumbent upon the State, whose only aim is to be pure and unadulterated justice, than defense counsel, who is also charged with gaining a result for a client? I agree both are responsible, but it seems to me that the government attorneys bear a burden much heavier than defense counsel .... "“I note, much as we did in Mechling v. State, 16 N.E.3d 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied, that the attorneys representing the State and the defendant are both officers of the court and have a responsibility to correct any obvious errors at the time they are committed."

  2. Do I have to hire an attorney to get co-guardianship of my brother? My father has guardianship and my older sister was his co-guardian until this Dec 2014 when she passed and my father was me to go on as the co-guardian, but funds are limit and we need to get this process taken care of quickly as our fathers health isn't the greatest. So please advise me if there is anyway to do this our self or if it requires a lawyer? Thank you

  3. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  4. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  5. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

ADVERTISEMENT