SACRAMENTO — State lawmakers on Thursday approved legislation that would allow some Californians with criminal convictions to have those records sealed if they maintain a clean record, a move cheered by criminal justice reform advocates and harshly criticized by law enforcement.
Sen. Maria Elena Durazo, a Los Angeles Democrat who wrote Senate Bill 731, said sealing the records would remove burdens on previously incarcerated individuals who face discrimination once they reenter society, including when applying for jobs and places to live. Because California law keeps criminal records public, even long after a person’s sentence ends, those convictions often surface during background checks.
“About 75% of formerly incarcerated individuals are still unemployed after a year of their release,” Durazo said. “So something’s wrong there. We expect them to get back on their feet, but we’re not allowing them the resources to get jobs and [have] careers.”
The Senate approved the bill in a 28-10 final vote, and it will head next to Gov. Gavin Newsom for his consideration. The Assembly passed the legislation in June.
If signed into law, criminal records will still be provided to school districts, county offices of education, charter schools, private schools and state special schools that conduct background checks for job applicants. People who have their records sealed also would be required to disclose their criminal history if asked when applying for a job in law enforcement or public office. Registered sex offenders were excluded from the legislation, and those convicted of serious and violent crimes would have to petition a court to have their records sealed.
Looks like Janice has her next lawsuit line up.
This is getting so old…”except for sex offenders”. I am sick of this attitude. It is always a blanket ban.
What about those no longer required to register?
Even if court cases are sealed people can still look up news articles on Google. And it means nothing to us Registrants – so no big whoop from us.
Those self-congratulatory politicians – they must feel good about themselves about now for somewhat cleaning up the mess they created in the first place – it’s too bad the public has little to no memory on these hucksters’ misdeeds of making bad policies and later reversing them.
My question,
Why post these kinds of depressing, no help articles. It’s like you enjoy kicking us. Like saying , “ oh btw, you are still F’ed”.
Considering that California has the most American citizens labeled as “Registered Sex Offenders” by the “courts,” with over 100,000 people classified as so (of the over one million in the United States), the blanket for Registered Sex Offenders seems a bit too politically convenient.
Once again, the masses have been fooled by a false sense of security.
Great legislation, but wow this leaves it wide open to a lawsuit.
There is no reason we should not be included other than moral panic. Expungements are already available, so how is this any different?
The recent slew of backing off of criminals and singling out sex offenders is proof alone that this goes beyond collateral consequences and goes into targeting
“…and excludes those convicted of serious and violent felonies, and felonies requiring sex offender registration.”
What a cruel, cruel joke. By all means, give hope and assistance to misdemeanants and traffic offenders, while those former offenders who are most in need of stability, redemption, and hope are once again slapped down by the vertebrate-challenged politicians.
Those who think life-long punishments are in the best interest of society are at best short-sighted and ignorant or at worst sadistic, or a combination thereof.
Consider helping, not hurting.
“…enabling man to go right, disabling him to go wrong” Lao Tzu
Sad
I have to agree somewhat in part with ‘along for the ride’s’ comment below.
At face value, the post gives a glimmer of hope concerning we might be able to get our record sealed, but then upon opening the post it says ‘we are excluded’ and that it opens up a door for lawsuits. Let those lawsuits be posted as they come up, but don’t get my hopes up by the title of the post only to dash them to bits against the rocks when I open the news to find out we are excluded.
Posts like that should be retitled to something like ‘New Bill that excludes sex offenders from sealing their records could result in lawsuits’.
With the title it currently has, its nothing other than hope-destroying clickbait.
From the article:
This doesn’t sound like sealing a record with those many loopholes. In fact, the relief sounds similar to 1203.4 (CA expungement) with those loopholes.
For all those who don’t qualify for 1203.4 and if they maintain a clean record, then SB 731 is an option for all except registrants or serious and violent crimes.
As others have mentioned, registrants are treated as a blanket group. Even 1203.4 doesn’t treat registrants like a blanket block. Yet, when a registrant who earns 1203.4, they still have to register and negates background checks.
So apparently the concern is only for some who have a difficult time reintegrating, getting a job, and having a career. It’s kind of a reverse bill of attainder!
8/26: Sitting on Newsome’s desk. No comment from him so far. He’ll sign, probably.
Unique exception to every rule.
Gavin signed the bill ! Now it’s time for RSOL to sue to include All Ca registrants no matter what their past conviction listed. The bill allows murder convictions which are violent crimes to seal their record so should sex offenders whose crime code which are considered violent have the same affordability ! Absolutely no difference!
Registered sex offenders were excluded from the legislation, and those convicted of serious and violent crimes would have to petition a court to have their records sealed. Sue sue sue !
This bill is limited to who can obtain a teaching credential.
AB 731 was not the only bill that provides relief from consequences of Felony conviction for those that are granted probation.
SB 1106 does this:
SEC. 2. Section 17 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
17. (a) A felony is a crime that is punishable with death, by
imprisonment in the state prison, or, notwithstanding any other law, by imprisonment in a county jail under the provisions of subdivision (h) of Section 1170. Every other crime or public offense is a misdemeanor except those offenses that are classified as infractions.
(b) When a crime is punishable, in the discretion of the court, either by imprisonment in the state prison or imprisonment in a county jail under the provisions of subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or by fine or imprisonment in the county jail, it is a misdemeanor for all purposes under the following circumstances:
(1) After a judgment imposing a punishment other than
imprisonment in the state prison or imprisonment in a county jail under the provisions of subdivision (h) of Section 1170.
(2) When the court, upon committing the defendant to the
Division of Juvenile Justice, designates the offense to be a
misdemeanor.
(3) When the court grants probation to a defendant and at the time of granting probation, or on application of the defendant or probation officer thereafter, the court declares the offense to be a misdemeanor.
(4) When the prosecuting attorney files in a court having
jurisdiction over misdemeanor offenses a complaint specifying that the offense is a misdemeanor, unless the defendant at the time of arraignment or plea objects to the offense being made a misdemeanor, in which event the complaint shall be amended to charge the felony and the case shall proceed on the felony complaint.
Of course it also does this:
“This section shall not apply to offenses for which registration is required under Section 290, to violations of Division 10 (commencing with Section 11000) of the Health and Safety Code, or to misdemeanor violations of the Vehicle Code relating to operation of a vehicle or of a local ordinance relating to operation, standing, stopping, or parking of a motor vehicle.”
In essence it makes all crimes a misdemeanor the moment the judge grants probation. You no longer even have to wait to complete probation. It is automatically declared a. misdemeanor at sentencing. Thus, even if the DA is asking for felony, the moment the judge says probation, it is a misdemeanor. Thus, the defendant has never been convicted of a felony, and therefore is not subject to any of the collateral consequences of a felony conviction. Not even the ones that linger past a 1203.4, like gun ownership and professional license/credential. They were never, not even for one second ever convicted of a felony. That is of course, if it is not 290 registerable…
This is a, have your cake and eat it too law. It allows the State to continue to have the option to use probation for certain 290 required offenses, but keep them at felony level. Though not totally uniquely, it is uniquely a blanket denial. The blanket gives them the option to make other 290 registerables probation eligible without having to add new penal codes to the exclusion list like they do with 1203.4. It just always denies all 290 registerables in all circumstances. Unequal protection discrimination made easy!
It changes 1203.4 the same way. Say goodbye to the lists of penal codes and say hello to convenience….all convictions requiring 290 registration. This is not unique, “arson” is also blanket covered.
Much language about “barriers to reentry” created by convictions. Barriers to employment, and housing. Language about removing these barriers making communities safer. Apparently those barriers mean nothing if you’re a 290? How can these barriers be meaningless to all 290 required people all the time, forever?
Add this insult to the AB 731 insult, and you begin to see a pattern of discrimination? Not a new one, just the latest examples of an ongoing one.