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 appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT