L21f·/ -------------- -------------------
\1(,: I;o--' . . '". . . . ,. .V'.;:O ';--;-- " ' ,, . . ::.- -' ."' '. , ,, .". ,. » .l21f·/,,National Criminal Justice Reference ServiceTechnical Report No. 27-------------- JrsThis microfiche was produced from documents received forinclusion in the NCJRS data base. Since NCJRS cannot exercisecontrol over the physical condition of the documents submitted,the individual frame quality will vary. The resolution chart onthis frame may be used to evaluate the document quality.i .(, j1.0.:; IllFaw111113111112,,5.2,2I" IOO &:.:I"J11111I." .u11.1:1r:zS G AND PURGING. 111111.25 111111.4,OFCRIMINAL' HISTORY RECORDINFORMATION111111.6,,MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHARTNATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS·1963-A. Microfilminfi procedures used to create this fiche comply withthe standards set forth in 41CFR 101-11.504.Points of view or opinions stated in this document arethose of the author(s) and do not represent the officialposition or policies of the U. S. Department of Justice.'.;(".If; . I Instituteof.Justice"l'.,---"-,- -. United States Department of JusticeWashington, D. C. 20531.: National--. . -- 1DATE FILMED1I!' r:12/01/81 .I
.--,,- MEMBERSH P GROUPU.S, Department of JusllceNationallnslltutc of JusticeSEARCH GROUP, INCORPORATEDChalnnan: Dr. Robert J. BradleyVIce Chalnnan: Frank RogersAlabama: Ruffin W. Blaylock, Director, Alabama Criminal J stice Information C!"nterAlaska: Susan Knighton, Chief Planner/Deputy Director, Criminal Justice Plannln AgencyArIzona: Robert J. Edgren, ACJIS Division Manager, Arizona Department of Puhltc SafetyArkansal: Charles C. McCarty, Manager, Statistical Analysis Center, Arkansas Crime Information CenterCalifornia: Michael V. Franchettl, Chief Deputy Attorney General, California Department of JusticeColorado: William R. Woodward, Deputy Director, State Division of Criminal JusticeConnecticut: Benjamin Goldstein, Deputy Director, Justice CommiSSionDelaware: Lt. Jay R. Brackin, Supervisor, Bureau of Identification, Delaware State PoliceRorlda: Robert L. Edwards. Director, Division of Criminal Justice Information Systems. Department of Law EnforcementGeorgia: Walter E. Boles, Director, Crime Information Center, Georgia Bureau of InvestigationHawaII: Steven E. Vidlnha, Hawaii Criminal Justice Statistical Analysis CenterIdaho: Kelly Pearce, Director, Idaho Department of Law EnforcementIIl1noll: Gary D. McAlvey, Bureau Chief, Bureau of Identification, Division of Support Services, Department of Law EnforcementIndiana: Captain James Kinder, Indiana State Police, Data SystemsIowa: ApPOintment PendingKalllal: Michael E. Boyer, Director, Statistical Analysis CenterKentucky: Major James H. Hosley, Administrative Services Command, Division of Administration, Bureau of State Policelouisiana: Dr. Hugh M. Collins, Deputy Judicial Administrator, Supreme Court of LouisianaMaine: Robert Wagner, Jr., Director, Bureau of IdentificationMaryland: Paul E. Leuba, Director, Data Services, Department of Public Safety and Correctional ServicesMallaChusetts: Louis H. Sakin, Executive Director, Criminal Histo Systems Board, Executive Office of Public SafetyMichigan: Henry Verkalk, Systems Analyst, Office of Criminal Justice ProgramsMinnesota: Wilham J. Swanstrom, Assistant Director-Program, Crime Control Planning BoardMI.lppl: Gordon Skelton, Governor's Office of Criminal JusticeMluourl: Dr. Robert J. Bradley, Director, Information Systems, Missouri Highway PatrolMontana: Larry Petersen, Chief, Research, Planning Bureau, Crime Control Division, Montana Department of JusticeNebraska: Lt. Colonel John E. Buist, Assistant Superintendent, Nebraska State PatrolNevada: Michael de la Torre, Director, Nevada Department of Law Enforcement AssistanceNew Hampshire: Robert F. Allison, Director, New Hampshire Statistical Analysis CenterNew Jersey: Captain Herbert E. Plump, Division of State Police, Department of Law and Public SafetyNew Mexico: Captain David Kingsbury, Commander, Planning and Research DiviSion, New Mexico State PoliceNew Yorlc:: Frank J. Rogers, Commissioner, Division of Criminal Justice ServicesNorth Carolina: William C. Corley, Director, Police Information NetworkNorth Dakota: Robert Vogel, University of North Dakota, School of LawOhio:JusticeJamesDivisionR. Wagaman, CJIS/CDS Project Director, Department of Economic and Community Development, Administration ofOklahoma: Appointment PendingOregon: Gerald C. Schmitz, Administrator, Data Systems Division, Oregon Executive DepartmentPennlyfvanla: Dr. Alfred Blumstein, School of Urban and Public Affairs, Carnegie-Mellon UniversityPuerto Rico: Domingo Rivera Millet, Esq., Director, Center of Criminal Justice InformationRhode Illand: Appointment PendingSouth Carolina: Lt. Carl B. Stokes, South Carolina Law Enforcement DivisionSouth Dakota: Michael Hillman, Evaluation Section, D/vlsion of Law Enforcement AssistanceTennessee: A. B. Hamm, Executive Officer, Tennessee Bureau of InvestigationTexas: Mike Hazlett, Office of the Governor, Office of General Counsel and Criminal JusticeUtah: L. Del Mortensen, -Director, Bureau of Criminal Identification, Utah Department of Public SafetyVennont Sergeant Billy J. Chilton, Director, Vermont Criminal Information CenterVIrginia: Richard N. Harris, Director, Division of Justice and Crime PreventionVIrgin IlIands: Frank O. Mitchell, Acting Administrator, Law Enforcement Planning Commission, Office of the GovernorWashington: John Russell Chadwick, Director, Statistical Analysis Center, Division of Criminal Justice, Office of Financial ManagementWashington, D.C.: In.spector Charles J. Shuster, Director, Data ProceSSing Division, Metropolitan Police DepartmentWest VIrginia: Captain F. W. Armstrong, Department of Public Safety, West Virginia State PoliceWlsconlln: Paul H. Kusuda, Deputy Director, Bureau of Juvenile Services, Division of CorrectionsWyoming: David G. Hall, Director, Division of Criminal Identification, Office of the Attorney GeneralAT LARGE APPOINTEESGeorgia: Romae T. Powell, Judge, Fulton County Juvenile CourtTexas: Charles M. Friel, Ph.D., DistingUished Professor of Criminal Justice, Sam Houston State UniversityTexas: Thomas J. Stovall, Jr., Judge, 129th District of TexasWashington, D.C.: Larry Polansky, Executive Officer, District of Columbia Court SystemTechnical Report No. 27April, 1981This dOGUm"nl Ila been reproduced exaclly as rt'ceivl'ci Irom Illeperson or organrldtron oflgrnating ii, Pornts of V'C\\' ur oprnions statedIII th,s document art' those of tile nulhor5 nnd do not IlPceBsnrrtyrpprl'sl'nt the Offr-:lilt p,)srtron or policres (If ttl{) Ndtionat tn lrtutc ofJIlsllcePl.'rrnrssron to rC'prl1du l' Illrs cOPYrlgi1tt'cl rnatt'rrat has lIeengranled bySearch Group Inc.to the Natll"'dt Crln'flnal Jusllce Rcf('renCl! SorviG(' (NC,lRS),Further rC'procluctlon oUlslde 01 the NCJRS syslem roqurrns pernllS111(' ,opyrtnlll Oil""",;:on l,f/SEALING AND PURGINGOFCRIMINAL HISTORY RECORD INFORMATIONi IIReport or work performed under Grant Number SO- .CX. ? a arded to SEARCH Gro.u p ,Inc., of Sacramento, California, by the Bureau of JUL'itlce Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.Points of view or opinions states in this document do not necessarily reneet the official positionor policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. E.i\RJgIrfliRIDUI? ,lli1l!!. , , .The National Consortium for Justice Informaiu.m andStatlsiH:; 925 SECRET RIVER DRIVESACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95831DR. ROBERT J. BRADLEY, Chairman(916) 392-2550STEVE E. KOLODNEY, Executive Director
---------------. ----------,PREFACEROSTER OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS\iChairman: Alan HamiltonGeneral ManagerRegional Justice Information SystemSt. Louis, MissouriCommi ttee MembersJohn Tagert, Chief of PoliceColorado Springs Police Departmentlester Earl CingcadeAdministrative Director of the CourtsSupreme Court of HawaiiHonorable Thomas A. ToweState Senator, MontanaAdam F. D"AlessandroDeputy CommissionerN. Y. State Division of CriminalJustice ServicesWilliam A. Hamilton, PresidentInstitute for Law and Social ResearchFred H. WynbrandtAssistant DirectorIdentification and Information BranchCalifornia Department of JusticeDaniel JaffeAssistant Attorney GeneralMassachusetts Department of theAttorney GeneralJames P. Zelle, DirectorConnecticut State PoliceBureau of IdentificationSEARCH is a unique organization designed to br ing the greatest force ofexpertise to bear on problems facing criminal justice agencies in all disciplines andat all governmental levels. A fundamental task of SEARCH is continuing researchinto justice system problems. Periodically, SEARCH looks at timely policy issuesand selects a few for indepth examination. The area of sealing and purging is sucha policy issue.The following report is based on a year-long study of sealing and purgingpractices and procedures. The study involved eight site visits to repositories ofcriminal history records as well as an examination of state and Federal statutoryand case laws. After a review of the laws and operating procedures currently beingutilized, a paper on the subject was developed. That document was scrutinized bymembers of an Advisory Committee (listed in the roster of committee membersimmediately preceding this preface) composed of legislators, information managers, representatives from the courts, police, and prosecution representatives. TheAdvisory Committee was convened on two separate occasions; their expertisehelped to refine the report that follows.Project MonitorCarol G. KaplanDirector, Privacy and Security StaffBureau of Justice StatisticsSEARCH StaffGary R. Cooper, Deputy DirectorRobert R. Belair, Legislative Counsel'!Copyright SEARCH Group,ii., -Inc., 1981lli
,TABLE OF CONTENTSPREFACEIXiiiPART 1: LAW AND POLICY ANALYSISSection 1:OVERVIEWSection 2:Section 3:1Defini tion of Sealing and PurgingEffect of Sealing and Purging Rationale for Sealing and Purging122THE CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS FORSEALING AND PURGING5Records of an Improper Arrest Records WHhout a Disposition or With aFavorable Disposition Constitutional Provisions Supporting Sealing and PurgingPurging as a Constitutional Remedy Notification to Repositories Subjects' Right to Deny Criminal EventCase Law Regarding Sealing and PurgingConstitutional Privacy Claim for Arrest Records.Inherent, Equitable Powers of the Courts911STATE AND FEDERAL STATUTORY LAW13State Statutory Law.Criteria Used to Seal or Purge Federal Statutory Law1314155677888PART 2: MODEL STANDARDS AND COMMENTARYSection 1:INTRODUCTIONSection 2:SEALING AND PURGING STANDARDS 21Section 3:GLOSSARY OF TERMS 3119PART 3: REFERENCESFOOTNOTES35SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY39I.Preceding page blank r. r---- -- . . .v
':',.,"PART!'I11I'II'I:I',
.--- - - - --, ::-.-I.-.-.-.-, --"--:-:-:.ISection 1OVERVIEWAs the 1980's begin there are few criminal justice information issues that generate as much controversy as standards forsealing and purging. The dispositive effectof a seal or purge order undoubtedlyaccounts for much of this controversy.Once a criminal history record is sealed orpurged, it generally cannot be obtained bythe public or even by criminal justice officials. Thus, sealing and purging policiesaffect significant personal and societal interests, among which are the privacy rightsof record subjects; agencies' attempts tobecome more effective and more efficient;and society's interest in reducing the risksto public safety posed by the subjects ofcriminal records.By any standard there is a remarkableamount of disagreement among the statesregarding basic sealing and purging issues.For example, states disagree about thedefinition of sealing and purging; about thetype of records subject to such orders;about the mechanisms for triggering suchorders; about the substantive criteria forentitlement to such orders; about the roleof legislative and administrative bodies inmaking sealing and purging policies; andabout the consequences of such orders.SEARCH and the Advisory Committeethat participated in this project do notadvocate that every state adopt identicalsealing and purging standards, for theeffective functioning of the criminal justice system and the exchange among thestates of criminal history records do notrequire such uniformity. On the otherhand, the criminal justice system and theinterstate exchange of information will bebenefitted by greater understanding ofsealing and purging laws and their effects,and by the achievement of a basic level ofagreement among the states concerningthe definition, scope and impact of sealingand purging standards.This report highlights the policy interests and conflicts raised by sealing andpurging standards. It also summarizes current constitutional and statutory law whichgoverns sealing and purging. Finally, itproposes a set of model sealing and purgingstandards for criminal history record information held by criminal justice agencies.Definition of Sealing and PurgingFew terms have suffered as manydiffering definitions and uses as the terms"sealing" and "purging." 1In most jurisdictions, but by no meansall, the word sealing is used to describe aprocedure whereby a record is physicallyremoved from a record system an,d itsdissemination is substantially or altogetherrestricted. In most jurisdictions; but againby no means all, the word purging is usedto describe a procedure whereby a recordis physically destroyed.The Advisory Committee recommendedthat sealing be defined as a prohibition ondissemination except to the record subjector pursuant to a court order.Purgingshould be defined as destruction.Seal means to prohibit access tocriminal history record informationexcept to: (l) employees of therepository for record managementpurposes only; (2) the record subject; (.3) a party for an authorizedresearch or statistical purpose; (4) aparty authorized access to the record by a court order.Purge means to destroy, blot out,strike out, or efface so that notrace remains.Expunge is asynonym. Destruction of personalidentifiers so that the record orentry cannot be associated with anindividual is a form of purging.1I . - - »-- ::::B",-l. .,.dijtu. :.;:.,1!'iIO!i!*ii' ;f: . --,
,are typically imposed on criminal recordsubjects by employers, credit grantors, andother private sector decision makers.Effect of Sealing and PurgingThe impact of a sealing or purgingorder can hardly be overstated. Such anorder either altogether prohibits the use ofa criminal history record or drasticallylimits its use. A record that has beenpurged {and in many jurisdictions a recordthat has been sealed} cannot be used by lawenforcement officials for investigative oridentification purposes; by prosecutors formaking pre-trial decisions; by courts formaking post-tr ial decisions; by paroleboards or probation officers for makingdeterminations regarding supervision; byfederal government agencies or the military for employment suitabllity and security clearance determinations; by state andlocal agencies for licensing and employment decisions; and by the private sectorfor employment, credit, insurance andnumerous other decisions.Thus, the effect of either a sealing or apurging order is to virtually strip the record of its utility. Further, many sealingand purging laws not only destroy or prohibit access to records, but also authorizethe record subject to deny the existence ofthe purged or sealed record and the occurrence of the event to which it pertains. Inthis way sealing and purging accomplisheswhat some observers characterize as a "rewriting" of history.The effect upon the record subject isjust as definitive. Subjects whose recordsare sealed or purged are largely freed ofall of the disabilities, formal and informal,that accompany the existence of a criminalrecord. SUbjects who are authorized todeny the existence of the record and thecriminal occurrence to which it pertains,can walk away from their past with theassurance that third parties will not beable to obtain any conflicting informationfrom a criminal record repository. Forexample, as a practical matter, those subjects usually escape penalties imposed bylaw on convicted felons--such as restrictions upon voting and entitlement to certain kinds of licenses. At the same timesubjects of purged or sealed records avoida multitude of informal "penalties" thatRationale for Sealing and PurgingSealing or purging serves a number ofimportant and valid interests. One of themost common {and least controversial} isto exclude from the system records thatare no longer of utility. Records of individuals whose age exceeds 70 or 80, forinstance, are often thought to be of littleinterest to criminal justice agencies. Experience has shown that individuals of thisage seldom become defendants in criminaljustice proceedings. For this reason theFederal Bureau of Investigation purges records of 80 year olds. Similarly, recordsthat pertain to deceased individuals aresealed or purged by almost all agencies onthe theory that these records are no longeruseful.The same argument may be made tosupport the sealing or purging of felony andmisdemeanor conviction records pertainingto individuals who have been free of crhinal involvement for a substantial numberof years. SEARCH's Technical Report No.13, Standards for Security and Privacy ofCriminal Justice Information, for example,recommends that records of felony convicts be sealed or purged after 7 years andrecords of misderneanants be sealed orpurged after 5 years, if the individual hasbeen free of criminal involvement for thatperiod of time.This rationale is based, at least in part,on the assumption that individuals who arefree of criminal involvement for a substantial period of time are not likely againto commit crimes. Therefore, the criminaljustice system does not need to continue tomaintain information about them.Amoderate amount of empirical researchsupports this position. 2However, manycriminal justice officials. including formerFBI Director Clarence Kelley, have arguedthat conviction records should not bepurged until the subject dies or reaches ol.dage. 3 They maintain that there simply, ISnot enough evidence to support the claIm2cants with arrest records. 5 Insurance companies are partly to blame. Many indemnity and liability policies contain provisionsthat void protection if the employer hiresan individual with a conviction or an arresthistory. 6The damage that can be caused byarrest records has received judicial recognition. In Menard v. Mitchell a federalcourt of appeals panel catalogued the problems presented by arrest records.that record subjects with long, "clean record" periods seldom commit crimes.In addition to sealing or purging criminal history records that are no longer useful, many sealing and purging schemes seekto exclude records that arguably werenever useful. Included in this category arerecords of mistaken arrests or arrests thatwere not based on probable cause. Thesesubjects should never have been arrested inthe first place and, therefore, it can beargued that it makes little sense for criminal justice agencies to maintain a record ofsuch an event.In a similar vein, records of even aproper arrest m/1'.y not be probative ofcriminal conduct. Therefore, the argumentis made that arrest records without a disposition or with a favorable dispositionshould be sealed or purged.However, many criminal justice officials reject this argument. They contendthat arrest information, even without adisposition, provides agencies with usefuland indeed vital information for identification and investigative purposes.RockyPomerance, former Chief of Police ofMiami Beach, Florida, has testified, forexample, that the reason for the absenceof a disposition is often entirely unrelatedto the merits of an arrest. I! Evidentiaryand witness problems, and prosecutorialcaseload and discretion are all factors thatmay cause
This microfiche was produced from documents received for inclusion in the NCJRS data base. Since NCJRS cannot exercise control over the physical condition of the documents submitted, the individual frame quality will vary. The resolution chart on this frame may be used to evaluate the document quality. j I"J 1:1 r 1.0 11111 1. 1 .:; IllFa w .
The Zipwhip Messaging API supports both single -user and multi-user authentication. If you use single-user authentication, then all users are Administrators (Admin). There is a single tier of users. If you use multi-user authentication, then at least one user is the Administrator and all other users are Operators. There are two tiers of users .
1-4 AutoCAD 2016 Tutorial: 2D Fundamentals Note that AutoCAD automatically assigns generic names, Drawing X, as new drawings are created. In our example, AutoCAD opened the graphics window using the default system units and assigned the drawing name Drawing1. 2. If necessary, click on the down-arrow in the Quick Access bar and select Show Menu Bar to display the AutoCAD Menu Bar. The Menu Bar .
Flexible printed circuits are found in everything from automobiles, VCR's, camcorders, portable phones and SLR cameras to sophisticated military and avionics systems. High-profile applications of flexible circuits are many. one example is the application of flexible-circuit technology in a rigid flex wire harness used on Sojourner, the robot that roamed the surface of Mars collecting data .
Don’t Crack Up Because of “CREAC”! How to Effectively Structure and Write Your Legal Arguments Beatrice C. Thomas, Legal Writing Fellow, 2017-19 You are in a final exam. You have read the hypothetical twice, spotted all the issues and you understand the call of the question. You turn to your computer, put your fingers on
Copyright 2010 Margaret Whisnant 2 Taking Grades Publishing Company, Conover, NC 28613 The Cricket in Times Square By George Selden Two Mario Pages 9-17
Entomology The study of insects Dominant groups of animals on earth today Life on earth: Modern humans 200,000 years Insects 350 million years
Although trading began with floor trading of traditional agricultural commodities such as grains and livestock, exchange-traded futures have expanded to include metals, energy, currencies, equity indexes and interest rate products, all of which are also traded electronically. FUTURES Standardized contracts for the purchase
Today, Mia Cucina enjoys continued success with our service and product quality, earning widespread recognition within the premium kitchen market segment. Mia Cucina is a statement of personal style manifested through a magnificent display of shape and form. It represents a lifestyle of charm enjoyed through beautifully ergonomic design.
