By: Bryant Chavez and Hannah Garst

On June 25, 2019, Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed into law HB 1438, which will end cannabis prohibition and replace it with a system to tax and regulate cannabis for adults 21 and over. Beginning on January 1, 2020, adults (21 and older) may possess and/or purchase cannabis products in licensed stores. Possession is limited to:

• 30 grams of raw cannabis;
• Cannabis-infused product or products containing no more than 500 mg of THC; and
• Five grams of cannabis product in concentrated form.

In addition to legalizing possession and use for adults, it allows for expungement for cannabis offenses. If you were convicted of possession of between 30 and 500 grams of marijuana, we can petition the Court for an expungement. The Court will weigh many factors, including facts of the underlying offense, when considering whether to grant the petitions to vacate and expunge your record. It is up to us to convince the Court that the remedy is appropriate for you.
Automatic Expungement of Criminal Records Involving Marijuana (Cannabis) Convictions of less than 30 grams
Individuals with qualifying offenses and records are not required to take any action to have their records automatically expunged. However, if you would like to have your record expunged as soon as possible, we can petition the Court to vacate and expunge the conviction without waiting for the Prisoner Review Board and Governor.

• Arrests Not Resulting in Criminal Charges: These cases are currently eligible to be expunged. However, starting on January 1, 2020, expungements will be automatic for arrests involving up to 30 grams of marijuana as long as at least one calendar year has passed since the date of arrest and no subsequent criminal charges were filed related to the arrest. Automatic expungement will start according to the date of the original arrest (see below).
• Arrests Resulting in Criminal Charges Not Resulting in a Conviction: These cases are currently eligible to be expunged. If you would like to have your record expunged as soon as possible, contact us today to start this process. Automatic expungement will start according to the date of the original arrest (see below).
• Convictions Involving Possession of Marijuana 30 Grams or Less: Starting on January 1, 2020, convictions involving up to 30 grams of marijuana will be eligible for automatic expungement. The violation must not have involved delivering marijuana to a child under the age of 18 who was at least 3 years younger than the defendant and did not involve a violent crime. The Illinois State Police will automatically identify all eligible conviction records and forward them to the Prisoner Review Board. After the Prisoner Review Board reviews the records, it will go to the governor with a recommendation for pardon. Once the governor grants a pardon, the state attorney general will petition the court to expunge the record.
• Timetable for Automatic Expungements

The schedule (and deadlines) for law enforcement agencies to automatically expunge qualifying offenses and records is based upon the initial date of arrest.

• Records created between January 1, 2013 and January 1, 2020, shall be automatically expunged prior to January 1, 2021
• Records created between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2012, shall be automatically expunged prior to January 1, 2023
• Records created before to January 1, 2000 shall be automatically expunged prior to January 1, 2025.

Individuals with qualifying offenses and records are not required to take any action to have their records automatically expunged. However, if you wish to start the expungement process today, contact the Bryant Chavez Law Office, LLC.
 
The automatic expungement mandate does NOT apply to marijuana related arrests and convictions associated with arrests and/or convictions for:

• Violent sexual offenses
  
• Sexual offenses against a minor
• Stalking offenses
• Any offense resulting in a court order to register as a Sex Offender
• Animal abuse offenses

Violations of local ordinances

According to Michael Sneed of the Chicago Sun-Times, former U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. recently sent a letter to Chicago Ald. Anthony Beale (9th) criticizing Beale’s proposed ordinance to add regulation for rideshare companies Uber and Lyft. Beale’s proposed ordinance would, among other things, mandate drivers for Uber and Lyft to submit to fingerprint background checks.
 
Holder posits that the fingerprint-based background check can have a discriminatory impact on communities of color. He notes that the FBI records from which the fingerprint checks are drawn are often incomplete and do not always show the results of the arrest. Because people of color are statistically more likely to pick up an arrest, their communities would be disproportionately impacted, even when (as is often the case) those arrests do not result in a conviction.
 
I support Holder’s criticisms. In my work, people often come to me with their FBI records looking for an expungement or sealing. It is actually relatively rare for the records to comprehensively contain all the information about what happened in a case. They can be a good starting point for me to figure out what is on a person’s record, but they are mostly worthless for determining eligibility to expunge or seal because they so often don’t list the outcomes of the cases.
 
The ironic part of this is that Uber and Lyft already perform background checks on potential drivers. Many clients have come to me needing to expunge or seal their record specifically because they didn’t pass the background check for these companies. The difference though is that those background checks are designed for employment purposes and therefore typically obtain the disposition information.

Tuesday is primary election day in Illinois, and here in Chicago one candidate is dealing with the same struggle many of my clients face—trying to obtain or keep a job despite the stigma of a criminal record. In a hotly contested race for the 5th District Illinois Assembly Seat, voters received campaign mailers featuring an old mugshot photo of incumbent Rep. Ken Dunkin. The date stamp indicates the photo is nearly 20 years old. In addition to the mugshot, the Sun-Times reported that the mailer listed information about the alleged crimes that may be incomplete and inaccurate.

Dunkin’s opponent, Juliana Stratton, insists her campaign had no involvement with sending the mailer. Nonetheless, she has failed to denounce the scare-mongering tactic. She told the Sun-Times that while she’s “an advocate for a second chance” she believes candidates for public office should be held to “a higher standard.”

While there may be some validity to her point, a mailer that paints a candidate in broad strokes as a criminal thug clearly seeks to provoke a knee-jerk disgusted reaction from voters. This type of labelling of individuals as criminals or felons without any explanation or context for their mistakes is what we at the Bryant Chavez Law Office fight against every day. For a politician like Dunkin, it’s one issue among many that citizens will use to decide whether to vote for him. For ordinary people applying for jobs, it often means outright and immediate rejection. Dunkin is lucky he has a public platform for explaining himself. Regular people with criminal records do not, which is why it’s so important that we have opportunities for reformed individuals to expunge or seal their old cases.

One common expungement misconception that I often hear is the notion that, after a certain length of time, the criminal record will automatically expunge.  This is not the case, no matter how old a case may be.  However, that may change for certain juvenile records.  Under a new bill proposed by Rep. Arthur Turner, arrest records of juveniles will automatically expunge when the juvenile reaches 18 years old.  The automatic expungement would only be for juveniles that were arrested and released without being charged in court.

This is a good bill because it protects juveniles that may not be well-informed of the judicial process.  Most juvenile records are eligible for expunging after a certain length of time, depending on the details of the case.  For those juveniles that are arrested and charged in court, they will be informed of their ability to expunge during the adjudication.  Their defense attorneys or the judge will be there to explain when and how the juvenile can expunge the case from her criminal record.  But if a juvenile is arrested and released right away, she may not ever speak with an attorney to learn her eligibility.  She may not even realize that a record of the arrest is made and kept.

According to the Chicago Sun-Times, about 75% of juvenile arrests in Cook County do not result in charges.  These juveniles shouldn’t be punished for their cases not being as severe as those for whom a delinquency petition was filed.  Otherwise they may only learn of their need for an expungement after a job/opportunity was already lost.

By now you’ve probably heard at least one story of someone who was released from prison after serving time – sometimes many years – for a crime they didn’t commit. The exonerations often come through updated DNA tests and the diligent efforts of Innocence Project groups. This work is certainly commendable. Although it must be a huge relief for individuals to have their conviction overturned, many may not realize that their criminal record still remains.

As the New York Times has reported, exonerated individuals often have a hard time assimilating back into society. In particular, it’s difficult to find a job. Unfortunately, many employers discard all applicants who have anything on their criminal record, regardless of the severity of the offense or whether the charges resulted in a conviction. The best way to improve your chances is to request that your state expunge the case from your record.

Some states have difficult requirements for getting a record cleared. In Alaska, for example, you actually have to prove your innocence in order to get a record sealed. This is a bigger hurdle than proving the state did not have sufficient evidence to convict.

Thankfully, in Illinois, it’s a relatively quick and straightforward process to get your record expunged after you’ve been exonerated. If your case occurred in Illinois, contact us at the Bryant Chavez Law Office for a free consultation.

In the course of my work helping individuals to have their criminal records cleared, I’ve become very familiar with the reasons people seek expungement or sealing. Some simply seek the satisfaction of clearing their name, for their own peace of mind. Some are ashamed of labels like “ex-felon” or “criminal” and would like to serve as a better model for their family. However, the vast majority of people I speak with are seeking a clean record for one primary reason: better job opportunities. Employment is the biggest hurdle people face when they have a black mark from their past holding them back.

Criminal background checks are now used more than ever. This is partly because of the proliferation of computerized recordkeeping (making the checks easier to conduct), but they’ve also been used to a greater extent since 9/11 due to increased security concerns. Add to the mix the recession of the past few years, and employers are quick to use criminal records as an easy first filter on a pool of applicants. When they see that someone has checked “the box” that indicates a criminal past, that person is discarded. A criminal record destroys the candidate’s chances.

Thankfully, lawmakers in Springfield have been showing they are aware of these challenges, and are crafting legislation aimed to help. The recent Illinois law that expands eligibility for sealing means a faster process for some who were previously only eligible to request a Governor’s pardon. Expunging or sealing a criminal record greatly helps ex-offenders to find employment and get their lives on track.

But in order to prove rehabilitation to the State, there is a mandatory waiting period for an expungement or sealing. This means someone has to wait several years after the completion of their case before clearing their record. In the time immediately following their release, ex-offenders often have a very difficult time finding a job. A new Illinois bill addresses this challenge. The proposed law would award a tax credit to employers who hire an ex-offender within three years of his release from an Illinois correctional center. The bill passed the State Senate in March, and is currently making its way through the House.

Our state representatives apparently recognize that when recent offenders struggle, they’re not contributing to their communities and the likelihood of recidivism is much higher. If enacted, this new law would benefit us all. Together with the expanded sealing law, these recent pieces of legislation show that the State is aware that a lot of talent is being wasted because of a mistake in people’s pasts. It is commendable that our lawmakers are creating ways for ex-offenders to re-enter society and lead productive lives.

The White House announced Friday that President Obama has granted pardons to 17 individuals convicted of non-violent federal crimes.  As the Washington Post reports, the successful petitioners “were sentenced years if not decades ago for such minor federal offenses as falsely altering a U.S. money order, possessing an unregistered firearm, embezzling bank funds and acquiring food stamps without authorization.”

Pardons on a federal level do not expunge a crime; the crime remains on the individual’s record. However, the pardon is an act of forgiveness from the President. Receiving a presidential pardon can remove barriers to certain career, financial, and other opportunities. Presidents can issue pardons for incarcerated individuals that include a commutation of sentence, but historically the vast majority of pardons issued have been for individuals who have already served their sentences.

Much like how Governor Quinn receives recommendations from the Illinois Prisoner Review Board that aid in making his state-level pardon decisions, President Obama has the federal Office of the Pardon Attorney that reviews applications. However, in the end it is entirely up to the chief executive whether to approve or deny any given petition. The “Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses” is an authority of the President specifically stated in Article 2, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

These are the first pardon decisions Obama has issued in his second term as President. Previously, he granted nine in December 2010, eight in May 2011 and five in November 2011. Although this total of 39 is much lower than his predecessors—George W. Bush granted 189 pardons in his presidency, while Bill Clinton granted 396—it doesn’t necessarily indicate that acts of clemency will remain rare in his second term. It’s true that presidential pardons can be tricky political territory. Ford’s notorious pardon of Nixon was a public-relations disaster from which he never recovered, and Clinton’s pardon of financier/fugitive/Clinton-campaign-donor Marc Rich was heavily criticized. But so far all of Obama’s decisions have been non-controversial and have received very little media attention. Without a looming re-election battle, perhaps Obama will work his way through more pardon applications in the next few years. It’s a good sign that this first batch comes less than two months into his second term.

In 1963, 18-year-old Richard Eggers and a friend visited a laundromat in Carlisle, Iowa. Bored and curious, Eggers decided to cut a dime-sized piece of cardboard out of his detergent box and see if it would work in the washing machine’s coin slot. Consequently, he was arrested and convicted of falsifying currency. He spent two days in jail.

Fast forward nearly 50 years. Eggers, a Vietnam Vet, has been working for the past seven years in a $29,795/year customer service job for Wells Fargo in Des Moines, Iowa. Out of the blue, his bosses at Wells Fargo inform him that he’s been fired because of the fake-dime conviction on his record.

Eggers’ employment was terminated as a result of new FDIC regulations which forbid banking institutions to employ anyone convicted of a crime involving dishonesty, breach of trust or money laundering. The laws were created as an attempt to combat mid-level and executive fraud in the wake of the devastating 2008 financial crisis. Members of the media and public have expressed outrage that thousands of low-level bank workers with minor arrests have been fired since the regulations were enacted. As a result of Eggers’ public campaign, he received a fast-tracked waiver from the FDIC to return to work at Wells Fargo. He refused to return, however, until Wells Fargo agrees to make changes to its background check process.

Although Eggers’ case has been highly publicized, there are countless other individuals across the country who are being denied employment due to increasingly used and increasingly stringent background checks. In addition to the banking industry, employers in many other fields (such as public schools and hospitals) are bound by law to conduct background checks. Many other private-sector companies choose to screen applicants with criminal records as a simple filter in a competitive job market. For ex-offenders who now live crime-free, productive lives, the imposing presence of background checks can seem like a permanent roadblock between them and their future success. However, that roadblock can be removed if a person is eligible under guidelines in his state to clear his record through an expungement, sealing or a Govenor’s pardon.

In Iowa, where Eggers lives, most adult criminal convictions are not eligible to be expunged from a person’s record. The only exceptions are for certain alcohol-related offenses, such as public intoxication, or for deferred judgments. The only option for all other offenses is to request a Governor’s pardon. However, in Iowa a pardon is only a state-sanctioned forgiveness for a crime; it does not carry with it a right to expunge the case from the petitioner’s criminal record. The mark remains on the ex-offender’s record forever.

Alternatively, if Eggers’s crime had occurred in Illinois, he would have the option to petition the Governor for executive clemency (pardon) which, if granted, would carry with it a right to expunge. Eggers would be a very good candidate for a pardon: this is the only case on his record and he has spent the following 50 years as a law-abiding, responsible citizen. The pardon petitioners I represent often have similar backgrounds. They made a mistake in their youth, but have since had many years without any incidents. These individuals have worked hard to rehabilitate themselves and contribute to society, yet their criminal past is keeping them from certain jobs, loans, housing, and other opportunities.

It’s also possible that if Eggers’s crime had occurred in Illinois and it was a misdeameanor, he would be eligible to seal the crime from his record (depending on the specific facts of his case, which I have not reviewed). When a record is sealed, it is closed off from the public, but is not physically destroyed as when it is expunged. Nonetheless, it is a simpler and faster process than requesting a Governor’s pardon. It’s possible that a sealing would be sufficient for Eggers’s situation.

In a case that will be closely watched by criminal justice advocates, the American Civil Liberties Union recently filed a lawsuit against the state of Alaska. They're suing on behalf of a married couple who would like an arrest expunged from their criminal records. In Illinois, expunging an arrest that did not result in a conviction is a straightforward, relatively quick process. However, each state has its own guidelines for the clearing of criminal records. As the ACLU lawsuit has brought to light, Alaska is one of the very few states that does not allow expungement at all.

That includes unlawful arrests that the court dismisses, which is what happened to the plaintiffs. The couple was arrested for possession of marijuana plants, but a judge later dismissed the case due to police negligence and misconduct. The couple want the arrest expunged from their criminal records. They’re worried the mark will follow them into the future, and could bar them from certain jobs or opportunities. Many people don’t realize that any arrest can show up on a criminal background check, even if there wasn’t a conviction or the charges were dismissed. 

When an arrest is expunged, the record is removed from databases and physically destroyed, as if it never happened. This is different from sealing a record, in which the record still exists but is closed off from the public. The statutory guidelines in Alaska don't have a section for expungement. Sealing is allowed, but only if the person can prove that the charges "beyond a reasonable doubt, resulted from mistaken identity or a false accusation." That is to say, if they can prove they're innocent. If a person was guilty of a crime but has since rehabilitated himself, there is no avenue in Alaska for him to clear his name and get a fresh start. That one mistake will follow him forever.

If a judge rules in the ACLU's favor, it would be a big win for the civil rights of Alaskan residents. In the meantime, we're thankful that in Illinois residents do have options for expungement, sealings and requests for executive clemency (pardons). It's easy to take for granted, but it can make a big difference for someone's future success.