The Governor of Maryland announced plans to pardon more than 175,000 people with convictions for cannabis possession. This joins a larger trend both federally and among many states (including Illinois) to forgive and help those with low level cannabis cases as the public perception of the drug moving more towards acceptance.

Unfortunately for those in Maryland, these pardons do not also expunge the cases from their record. In Illinois, cases that receive a pardon can also be expunged so that the former conviction does not continue to come up on background checks.

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.

President Barack Obama recently issued an executive order requiring federal agencies to "delay inquiries into criminal history until later in the hiring process." The "Ban the Box" order does away with the question on federal job applications asking if the applicant has been convicted of a felony. Many employers use this question as one of the initial filters to sift through applications. As a result, many talented applicants are dropped because of a blemish on their criminal record, no matter how old.

By banning the box, those individuals would at least have the chance to get their foot in the door. Background checks would still be performed on the candidates, but not until after they have already made an impression on those hiring.

In Rex Huppke's column in the Chicago Tribune, he does a great job laying out why banning the box is good, but more is needed. By taking more pro-active steps to help rehabilitated people get employment, we can reduce recidivism and get talented people into positions which need them. Society is helped twice over. Illinois lawmakers have recognized this fact, and have begun implementing some steps. President Obama's executive order will hopefully serve to extend this understanding to the national stage.

A change in the Illinois law governing criminal record sealing was made this week which will allow a person to bypass the waiting period to seal if he or she furthers their education. The bill passed both houses in May and was signed into law by Governor Rauner on Monday. It will take effect on January 1, 2016.

Previously, anyone convicted of an offense had to wait four years from the termination of their last sentence to seal the case (if it is an eligible offense). Under the new law, the defendant may petition to seal the records as soon as the sentence terminates if he or she obtained a new diploma, degree, certification, or GED during the time of their sentence, aftercare release, or mandatory supervised release. If the sealing petition is denied by the court, then the normal waiting periods apply for refiling in the future.

This is a good change as it will help those with a conviction more easily avoid the stigma of having a criminal record. The purpose of the waiting period is to allow enough time for the defendant to establish their rehabilitation. Clearly, someone who furthers their education is taking the steps to become a more productive member of society. I often encounter clients who are wary of completing their education program because of their criminal record. Why rack up more loans/tuition fees when it is unlikely that you will be hired in your field of study after a background check? Now, those people will be incentivized to further their education, which not only helps the individuals but also the economy of Illinois as well.

As we pointed out in June, the Illinois legislature passed a bill that changed the Criminal Identification Act to make most misdemeanor violent crimes eligible for sealing.  Last week, Governor Quinn signed the bill, as was expected, officially making it law.  The new law will take effect on January 1, 2015.

Prior to this change, anybody convicted of a violent crime (misdemeanor or felony) could not expunge or seal that case.  The only option was executive clemency.  Now that another avenue has opened for those sentenced to misdemeanor level violent offenses, it will help many to pass the background checks that had been standing in the way of them moving on with their lives.

In the course of my work as pardon/expungement attorney, I occasionally encounter individuals that argue that my clients should not get to clear their criminal records.  It’s a do-the-crime-do-the-time argument where “the time” extends beyond the formal sentence into any future repercussions of their offense, regardless of proportionality.  Aside from the general vindictiveness of that mentality, this position also does a disservice to society as a whole. 

That is why I enjoyed reading Neil Steinberg’s recent article in the Chicago Sun-Times, which takes up the defense of a University of Illinois instructor who previously served time in federal prison.  The instructor had been part of a group that had committed several felonies, including a bank robbery in which a person was killed.  The article goes on to examine his life after the events of that case, and argues that his rehabilitation should carry more weight than his mistakes.

The lesson here is that even smart, creative people make mistakes.  While it is great that this instructor was still able to succeed, there are many for whom the burden of a criminal record is a life sentence.  Right now, there are young folks with world-class potential to become professors, doctors, scientists, etc. and are picking up criminal records.  Many of them will face so many roadblocks from their conviction that they never realize this potential.  You can extend this reasoning further and find that there are many hard-working, rehabilitated people that are unemployed or underemployed because of background checks finding a mistake they made long ago.  Most might not even realize that they have options to clear their criminal records.  When as a society we allow for great reservoirs of talent to go untapped, we all lose.

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.