A recently decided case in Minnesota expanded the relief
allowed with expungement of one’s record and clarified the analysis of the five
factors for determining whether expungement should be granted. It
also expanded the benefit of expungement by stating the court had authority to
order records expunged even if held in other branches of government.
Expungement Factors
In State of Minnesota v. M.D.T., the court began by
determining if the expungement was appropriate and discussed the five factors
in making the determination. The court
applied the five factors discussed in H.A., 716 N.W.2d 360, 364 (Minn.
App.2006), which are “(a) the extent that a petitioner has demonstrated
difficulties in securing employment or housing as a result of the records
sought to be expunged; (b) the seriousness and nature of the offense; (c) the
potential risk that the petitioner poses and how this affects the public’s right
to access the records; (d) any additional offenses or rehabilitative efforts
since the offense; and (e) other objective evidence of hardship under the
circumstances.”
The court concluded that the petitioner had demonstrated
difficulties in securing employment because she had been fired from jobs,
rejected employment positions, and advised not to apply for jobs due to her
criminal conviction. Further, the court
stated that in proving a person has experienced difficulties it does not mean
that a person must prove it is impossible to secure employment, instead the
person must prove they have simply experienced difficulties. In proving this factor the court is also able
to rely on the petitioner’s oral or written statements in regard to the
difficulties. The court is able to rely
on simply the petitioner’s statements, although evidence such as rejection
letters or documents regarding termination of employment help. Moreover, documentary evidence is not
mandatory.
When reviewing the second factor, seriousness of the offense,
the court decided the petitioner’s offense was not serious based on the fact
that there was no violence or victims.
The court will consider the circumstances surrounding the offense in
regards to seriousness, specifically whether there was violence or any
victims. In this case, the petitioner’s
offense was a forgery case and not considered serious.
In regards to the impact of risk posed by the petitioner on
public right to access records, the court found that the public’s interest in
having the records remain public was not necessary due to the petitioner’s low
likelihood of reoffending. The court
referenced that since the petitioner is not a dangerous or violent individual
there is no threat to the public.
Instead, the petitioner had a lapse in judgment that was due to a
financial hardship and not due to her criminal nature. Moreover, the court explained that after the
conviction the petitioner continued to display behavior that is consistent with
posing a low risk of reoffending. She completed
her sentence, applied for jobs, married, had a child, and remained
law-abiding. If there is little risk of
a future conviction in which the records will be needed to warn the public or
assist the court then the public will have less interest in needing the records
to remain accessible.
Rehabilitation and additional offenses is the fourth
factor. In this case the petitioner had
no subsequent offenses and this factor supported expungement.
Lastly, the court decided that the petitioner had proven
evidence of hardship because she needed to financial support her family and was
unable to do so due to not being able to secure employment with the
conviction. There was a hardship due to
her inability to financially assist her family since she was unable to obtain
employment.
Expungement Affects Records Other Than Just Court Records
In State of
Minnesota v. M.D.T., in addition to deciding the expungement was
appropriate for the petitioner, the court also determined that the district court
is able to order the expungement of the records maintained by agencies other
than the courts. Cases previously
decided stated that agencies other than the court were able to still maintain
and display the conviction. This was
because they were executive branch agencies and could maintain their own
records due to the separation of powers doctrine. Examples of these agencies are police and sheriff
departments, the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, Minnesota
Department of Corrections, probation departments, city attorney offices,
district attorney offices, county attorney offices, Minnesota Attorney General,
etc. Records maintained by the executive
branch agencies are easily accessed and sometimes even available online for no
charge.
The court in State of Minnesota v. M.D.T. referenced State
v. Randolph, 800 N.W.2d 150, 160 (Minn.2011) in which that case stated the
courts have the “authority necessary to preserve and improve the fundamental
judicial function of deciding cases.” The
court then proclaimed this includes administering justice and protecting rights
guaranteed by the constitution. By
allowing the executive branch agencies to maintain and disseminate records that
have since been expunged the courts’ functions are restricted. The executive branch records should coincide
with the judicial records since a court, which at one time created the records
of the case with convicting the defendant, have since changed or expunged the
record. This would allow justice to be
administered and constitutional rights to be protected.
Furthermore, the court originally determined the just
punishment for the crime and expungement is a tool to protect against excessive
punishment. In State of Minnesota v.
M.D.T. it was determined that the effect of the defendant not being able to
become employed for a lifetime due to a minor forgery offense was excessive
punishment. Moreover, if the executive
branch agencies still reported the conviction after the judicial expungement then
the excessive punishment would continue even after the court expunged the
record. This would mean a court would be
unable to perform the functions of administering justice and protecting constitutional
rights.
An executive branch record exists due to the court creating
a record of guilt. However, once that
record of guilt is expunged, the executive branch’s need for the record to
remain is reduced. The court in the State
of Minnesota v. M.D.T. case determined that the executive branch agencies’
needs were met because the district court allowed the executive branch records
to be reopened and unsealed if there were proper circumstances and good cause
is shown. Therefore, hypothetically, if
the defendant were to be charged with another crime the agencies could unseal
the records. Yet, if the defendant was
not charged with a subsequent crime and there are no other circumstances that
arise to show good cause then the record would remain expunged. The court states this solution “protects the
fundamental rights of the expungement petitioner, the district court’s inherent
authority to issue meaningful orders that are effectual, the executive branch’s
duty to maintain criminal records in the public interest, and the separation of
powers.”
