|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VETOES
|
|
|
|
|
H.B. 607
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Speaker of the House of Delegates
State House
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
Dear Mr. Speaker:
In accordance with Article II, Section 17 of the Maryland Constitution, today I have
vetoed House Bill 607 - Police and Court Records - Nuisance Crimes - Expungement.
House Bill 607 allows an individual who has been convicted of one or more of 10
specific offenses to petition to have the police and court records concerning the
conviction expunged three years after the latter of the conviction or completion of the
sentence. The bill does not limit the number of expungements that an individual may
receive for the specified crimes.
Current law establishes eight specific circumstances under which an individual may
petition for expungement of a criminal record. Seven of these circumstances involve
situations in which there was no conviction: an acquittal, a dismissal of charges, a
nolle prosequi, a stet, certain probations before judgment, a compromise of an assault
charge, or a transfer of a case to the juvenile court. A conviction may be expunged
under current law only if an individual is convicted of a single nonviolent crime and is
granted a full and unconditional pardon by the Governor.
There is now a clear bright line regarding expungements of convictions. With the
single exception stated above, they are not allowed. The public policy of the State does
not distinguish between different types of crimes. A conviction creates a record that
may be relevant in the event of future criminal proceedings.
It is important to note that criminal histories are also used for non-criminal
purposes. For example, individuals seeking to work with children, in adult dependent
care, with explosives, or with security systems are required to obtain a criminal
history records check. If an individual has a conviction involving one of these crimes,
or especially if there is more than one conviction for a crime such as urinating in
public (i.e., an indecent exposure charge) or riding a transit vehicle without paying (a
form of theft), such a record may be relevant information in determining whether the
person should be working with children or with vulnerable adults.
As stated above, the law does provide the exception for a gubernatorial pardon that
would apply to a single conviction of those crimes listed in House Bill' 607.
Accordingly, I have implemented a procedure to review all requests for pardons. The
materials presented include a review of the circumstances of the crime, the person's
behavior following the conviction, the reasons for seeking a pardon, the opinion of any
victim, and recommendations by those involved with the case within the criminal
justice system. Under appropriate circumstances I believe that individuals are
entitled to a second chance I and have not been reluctant to act accordingly. I believe
the best approach is to consider such requests on a case-by-case basis and not
through a blanket process of expungement.
The Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services has requested a veto of
House Bill 607. The department states: "To permit expungements of certain
convictions, even those of apparently minor nature, without reference to a review of
the petitioner's complete record would critically diminish the utility of Maryland's
- 4126 -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
