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.

Recently, the Illinois Senate passed a bill which would expand the universe of cases eligible for sealing.  The Illinois House previously passed it in March.  Assuming that Governor Quinn signs the bill, it will allow those convicted of most misdemeanor violent crimes to seal those cases.  Previously, any violent crime conviction, misdemeanor or felony, was not eligible to seal or expunge.  The only option to remove these types of offenses from a criminal record was executive clemency.  Under this new bill, misdemeanor violent offenses (except for a few listed exceptions, such as domestic battery) will be eligible to be sealed by the court directly.

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.

Recently, two state legislators announced that they will co-sponsor a bill to eliminate Cook County’s boot camp program.  The main thrust of their opposition to the program comes from a Sun-Times investigation which discovered that some ineligible defendants were given boot camp.  They argue that the program is flawed and fundamentally unfair to those convicted in the rest of the state.

I strongly disagree with their proposal.  For one, conviction rates and sentence severity has always varied from county to county.  So the “fairness” argument rings hollow when the location an offense is committed has always affected how the case will play out.

In my line of work, I have come across many former offenders that truly credit boot camp for turning their life around.  Boot camp serves as the wake-up call that these people need to rehabilitate.  In addition, because those convicted serve months rather than years, they are less of a strain on the overburdened and overfilled Illinois prison system.  But make no mistake, boot camp is no walk in the park.  It is an intensive program, but still allows defendants to avoid the pitfalls of spending years in prison.  It is much easier to rehabilitate when you re-enter the world quickly with a new outlook than it is after you have become habituated to prison life.

Even if some people convicted were wrongly given boot camp, abolishing the whole program amounts to throwing the baby out with the bath water.  Now that there has been so much attention brought to the sentencing guidelines as it relates to boot camp, I do not imagine that there will be such widespread error in sentencing anymore.  If there are still flaws, then work to fix them rather than lazily throwing out something that does have positive results.

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.

This weekend, Governor Pat Quinn signed into law bills aimed at helping those with a criminal record to restart their lives.  As previously discussed, one of these new laws will increase a tax incentive for employers to hire ex-offenders.

However, the biggest change in the law for record clearing purposes is a further expansion of felony convictions eligible for sealing.  Previously, the only felony convictions eligible for sealing were Class 4 level drug possession or prostitution unless special authorization was granted by the Illinois Prisoner Review Board.  But under this new law, sealing eligibility will also include Class 3 and Class 4 level theft, retail theft, forgery, possession of burglary tools, and deceptive practices.

When the bill was originally introduced, it also included Class 2 level felony cases burglary, delivery of a controlled substance, and possession of a stolen motor vehicle.  But, these offenses were later deleted as the bill was amended.  If you were convicted of any of these felonies, your option for clearing it from your criminal record is still executive clemency (Governor’s pardon).

The 2014 Illinois Governor’s race is starting to ramp up, as former White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley threw his hat into the ring this week. If state Attorney General Lisa Madigan also decides to run, the incumbent Pat Quinn could end up with a fierce three-way battle in the Democratic primary. And that’s if Quinn decides to run for re-election, which he has not publicly announced yet. There are also several Republican candidates already in the race, including state Treasurer Dan Rutherford and state Senator Kirk Dillard.

Since Governor Quinn has proven himself to be one of the most pro-pardon governors in the country, I have recently heard from clients who are nervous about what will happen if a new governor takes over in 2014. Since 2009, Quinn has steadily worked his way through the backlog of clemency petitions left over from the Blagojevich administration. By regularly issuing decisions and granting those to individuals who have paid their debt to society and shown rehabilitation, he shows that he is respectfully reviewing the requests. Would Governor Daley, Madigan, Rutherford or Dillard act similarly? Can we point to anything in their experience that indicates a predilection to approve or deny pardons? Would any of them go the route of Blagojevich or Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, and ignore the responsibility entirely?

The simple (but yes, unsatisfying) answer: we just don’t know. Granting pardons is one of the few powers that is entirely up to the discretion of the chief executive. Furthermore, on both the state and federal level, historically it has not been a partisan issue. You cannot predict how a leader will act on pardons based on his party affiliation.

Because of the uncertainty over who will take over the governor’s job, I have heard from a few individuals who are wondering if they should hurry and submit a pardon petition immediately, with the hopes it will come before Quinn while he’s still in office. My answer is that your best chance for receiving a pardon will be if you have shown years of productive rehabilitation and have taken steps to get your life back on track. If that’s not the case, it will be difficult to get your petition granted. The best time to submit a pardon is when your life is in the right place for it, not based on who is in office at the time. If you would like to discuss the merits of your particular case further, give me a call for a consultation.

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.