Category: Eligibility - Clean Record Illinois - Expungement, Seal, Pardon, Clemency

New Illinois Law Expands Sealing Eligibility

1/31/2013

A new state law that goes into effect this month has expanded the eligibility for sealing criminal records. Under the new legislation, ex-offenders can now petition the Prisoner Review Board for eligibility to seal a Class 3 and 4 felony conviction from their criminal records, so long as the charge was not for violence, sex, or DUI. Previously, the only convictions that were eligible to be sealed were Class 4 drug crimes and prostitution. The change in the law means the potential for many new individuals to have their records sealed from the public, allowing them expanded opportunities to fully integrate back into society.

Bipartisan bills were introduced in the Illinois House and Senate in February of last year. A final bill passed both houses in May, and was signed into law by Governor Quinn in August. Getting such legislation enacted is no easy task. According the Illinois Press Association, similar bills have been proposed in the last five years, but have failed to make it out of committee.

There is a waiting period and other stipulations under the new law, but contact us at the Bryant Chavez Law Office for a free consultation to determine your eligibility.

“Felons Can’t Vote”: A Common Misconception

11/5/2012

In a scene from a new documentary, Electoral Dysfunction, a group of Indiana political activists canvass a neighborhood, knocking on doors and registering voters. At one home, a polite older woman answers the door. They ask her if she’s registered. “No,” she responds. “I thought convicted felons can’t vote.”

They inform her that, actually, in Indiana, she is allowed to vote. Election laws vary from state to state. Once an Indiana resident has served his sentence, his voting rights are fully restored. This is the case in most U.S. states, although some also require the completion of parole and/or probation. Two states, Maine and Vermont, are more lenient. The laws in these states allow convicted individuals to vote while in jail, by absentee ballot. On the other end of the spectrum, nine states bar individuals convicted of certain crimes from voting for life.

The confusion may stem from the fact that, unlike most other leading democracies in the world, our national constitution does not include the right to vote. For this reason, Congress has had to pass several landmark pieces of legislation – the 15th Amendment, the 19th Amendment, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 – to clarify who has the right to vote, and to protect those voters from discrimination and disenfranchisement.

But it is a tragic reality that millions of American citizens are disenfranchised every election, simply for having a criminal past. Officials in several states have decided that even after a person has paid his debt to society through a prison sentence, they are ineligible to participate in the democratic process. Worse still, these policies have leached into states without such restrictions. Many ex-felons, such as the Indiana woman in the film, don’t realize they are permitted to vote in their state. There are severe penalties for illegal voting, so it is understandable that ex-felons are reluctant to vote if they’re unsure of their rights.

In Illinois, the state constitution allows all non-incarcerated adult citizens to vote. If you live in Illinois and have a criminal record, you have the right to vote. You do not need to wait until the completion of supervision, parole or probation. Just make sure you’ve registered at least 30 days before an election – visit the State Board of Elections website for instructions.

At the Bryant Chavez Law Office, we believe your criminal past should not prevent you from leading a positive, fulfilled life. We work every day to help reformed individuals clear their criminal records, giving them expanded opportunities to contribute to society. This election day, we encourage you to exercise your right to vote. Millions of people aren’t so lucky.

ACLU Sues for Expungement in Alaska

9/24/2012

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.

Governor Quinn Releases Latest Batch of Pardon Decisions

7/15/2012

On Friday, Governor Pat Quinn continued whittling down on the Illinois pardon petition backlog by deciding on another 144 petitions for executive clemency, granting 42 of them. Of the granted petitions, the convictions ranged from burglary to drug offenses.

One interesting pardon that Governor Quinn granted was to an offense that was already pardoned. The petitioner was convicted in 1984 and was given executive clemency by former Governor Jim Edgar in 1992. In those times, pardons were essentially state-sanctioned forgiveness, without the accompanying avenue to clear one’s record. This is still the case for federal pardons. Now that someone can seek authorization to clear their criminal record with a pardon, this petitioner had to go through the process twice. Congratulations to all those who received pardons, for now finally being able to keep their criminal history in the past!

According to the Chicago Tribune article, Governer Quinn has decided on 2,068 clemency petitions throughout his tenure. He has granted 761 and denied 1,307.

Article Highlights Gov. Quinn's Tackling of Executive Clemency Backlog

7/10/2012

Saturday’s State Journal-Register had a good article giving an overview of the state of executive clemency petitions before Governor Pat Quinn right now. The article points out how former Governor Blagojevich did very little in the way of petitions for executive clemency. Because Blagojevich refused to address the petitions before him, a backlog continued to build up. When Governor Quinn took office, that backlog had grown to about 2,500 petitions.

Governor Quinn has done a good job chipping away at the backlog of clemency petitions, while also addressing the newer ones that he receives. Since taking office in 2009, Governor Quinn has acted on roughly 1,900 petitions. These petitions have come in the form of pardons and commutations of sentence.

The article also highlights the role of the Prisoner Review Board, which serve as a team of advisors for the Governor. All petitions for pardons and commutations are initially reviewed by the Prisoner Review Board. The board will also conduct hearings for those petitioners who request it. After their review, the Prisoner Review Board sends off the petition to Governor Quinn along with a recommendation. Governor Quinn usually follows this recommendation, though he can, and does occasionally, overrule them. If the Governor grants the clemency petition, the petitioner will be eligible to expunge the conviction from her criminal record.

Ironically, Proposed Chicago Ordinance to "Decriminalize" Pot Could Increase Number of Criminal Records

6/16/2012

There are many pragmatic reasons why Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle support the proposed Chicago ordinance which will allow police officers to issue tickets for possession of small amounts of marijuana. The ordinance would likely increase revenue for the city, while at the same time it would allow police the freedom to focus on more important matters. However, one reason thrown out in support of “decriminalization” is that it will prevent people from needlessly carrying criminal records. Sadly, this proposed ordinance would likely increase this result.

Many background check companies look for and report ordinance violations, so it is not as if these tickets will be invisible. On top of that, the influx of ordinance violations will make clearing criminal records more difficult. Currently, most people arrested for possession of small amounts of cannabis are able to avoid major penalty. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, 90% of the misdemeanor cannabis cases in Cook County from 2006-2010 were dropped. For the few first-offenders whose cases aren’t dropped, they usually receive court supervision. Under each of these scenarios, the charge can be expunged as if it never happened.

But under Illinois expungement law, convictions for ordinance violations can prevent a person from expunging an otherwise expungeable criminal record. In some cases, they can even prevent expungeable offenses from even getting sealed. I fear that many will simply pay the small fine, accept a conviction, and not realize the implications of what they are agreeing to.

The people most hurt by this procedural change would actually be juveniles. Unlike with criminal charges, juveniles can be convicted of ordinance violations. To make matters worse, those ordinance violations are not automatically sealed. The laws in Illinois are designed to prevent mistakes made by kids from following them for the rest of their lives, but this ordinance would subvert those intentions.

This is precisely what happened to a former client of mine. In a county that had already adopted this “decriminalization” procedure, he was convicted of the ordinance violation for marijuana at age 15. Years later, he wanted to become a cop, but was denied due to having a drug conviction, an automatic bar for that agency. He could have had the ordinance violation sealed, but police are one of the few agencies capable of seeing sealed records. That meant his only option to become a police officer was to seek a Governor’s pardon, which can be a costly process that often takes years. If instead he had been charged as a juvenile for the criminal offense of possession of cannabis, he could have quickly and easily expunged it.

So, while the proposed Chicago ordinance to lower the severity of small marijuana possession certainly has it merits, the change in procedure would not be without its warts as well.

Frequently Inaccurate Background Checks are Detrimental to Job Applicants

5/16/2012

Earlier this week, the Chicago Sun-Times ran an editorial that is close to my heart. They were calling for stringent accuracy standards on companies that perform background checks. As they point out, thousands of job seekers have been denied employment because of mistakes by these background check companies, according to the National Consumer Law Center.

This information comes as no surprise to me. Often, clients will come to me to find out if they are eligible to expunge or seal and they’ll have with them background checks performed by these private companies. I always tell them that we can’t know for certain unless we actually pull the case information from the court records because private background check companies are notoriously inaccurate.

While the Sun-Times editorial focused on errors that reported crimes never performed by the applicant, this is only part of the problem. People can also be harmed by what the background checks don’t show. Many people will have a background check performed on themselves in order to find out if some old case can still come back to bite them. They don’t realize that every background check company will have their own processes for research and reporting. Some will look at a person’s entire criminal history, but for only the last 7 or 10 years. Others will look into a person’s entire life, but only report convictions. Others still, just felony charges. When there is no standardization, there is no telling what criminal offenses the background check companies will find. Throw in the high rate of errors and these background checks become highly unreliable.

The unreported “missing” cases can hurt people in a couple ways: (1) Any arrest can affect a person’s eligibility for an expungement or sealing, so it is important to know every single charge a person has ever received. (2) They can also lull people into a false sense of security that a case is no longer visible so there’s no need to clear it from their record. Just because it hasn’t appeared on one background check, doesn’t mean that it isn’t coming up on others.

While there are some measures in place to try to prevent employment discrimination against those with criminal records, the Sun-Times properly points out that “…in the real world, job applicants may never know why they weren’t called in for an interview. The Society for Human Resource Management says 93 percent of employers ran background checks on some applicants in 2010 and 73 percent checked all of them.” So I applaud the Chicago Sun-Times for bringing to light the injustice that this carelessness can bring.

Arrests at NATO Summit Protests Likely Clearable

5/14/2012

With the impending 2012 NATO summit here in Chicago, many are concerned about possible clashes between the Chicago police and NATO protesters. Indeed, the first set of arrests have already occurred a week before the summit. But as this is no longer 1968, I don’t imagine we’ll see the level of violence that occurred in Grant Park. I don’t believe anyone wants to see a repeat of that.

For those protestors that are arrested, most would likely be able to clear their record. Typical arrests for protestors are for misdemeanor level charges like criminal trespass, disorderly conduct, resisting a peace officer, etc. Often times these charges are dropped fairly quickly, as the main purpose of the arrest is usually to establish order in the given situation. If the charges are dropped, then the defendant can expunge the arrest from their record so long as they have no prior convictions. If the defendant receives court supervision, then she will be able to expunge the case as well, but will have to wait a couple years. If the defendant has a prior conviction, or is convicted of this charge, then they will be able to seal the charge rather than expunge.

The concern for an arrested protester is to avoid convictions for violent crimes, such as assault or battery. Convictions for violent crimes are not eligible to expunge or seal. The only way to clear these from your criminal record is through executive clemency (Governor’s pardon).

Illinois to Make Dating with a Criminal Record Difficult

3/29/2012

Yesterday the Illinois Senate overwhelmingly passed a bill that would require online dating sites to disclose whether they performed criminal background checks on their members. The bill will now go before the Illinois House, where a similar bill already got committee approval.

The legislation would force dating sites to state whether they allow individuals with criminal backgrounds to become members, as well as whether the dating site actually performed a criminal background check on the members. If the site does do criminal background checks, then the legislation would require the sites to do so by using official government databases, such as Illinois criminal court records and sex offender registries.

This is yet another example of how today’s information age makes it difficult for people to put their past behind them. If online dating sites begin doing criminal background checks on all of their members, you can bet that criminal records will be one of the first search filters used by prospective mates. Even if the site doesn’t disclose what the actual criminal charges were, they would still be in the position of filtering out matches for members based on the information that they possess. Those with criminal records already face difficulties with potential employers and landlords, but now they will encounter those same difficulties in their love lives as well?

Before joining one of these dating sites, you should consider clearing your criminal record first. If you expunge or seal your criminal record, then the dating sites would not be able to see your case(s) when they do a background check. If you are not eligible to expunge or seal, then you can always seek a Governor’s pardon which, if granted, will then allow you to expunge the criminal record. Don’t let Mr. or Mrs. Right slip away because of a mistake made in the past!

Age: It's More Than a Number

2/12/2012

Three boys from Lincoln Park High School were recently charged with misdemeanor criminal sexual abuse against a female 16-year-old classmate. Two of the boys, aged 19 and 17, are considered adults in Illinois and will face adult charges in court. The third, on the other hand, is a juvenile and will instead be sent to juvenile court. This small difference in age could mean a big difference in how the boys will eventually be able to clear this from their criminal record.

The easiest scenario is the one in which they all share the same outcome; that is, they are all found not guilty or the case is dismissed. If that were to happen, then all three would be able to expunge the charge quickly and easily.

From there, the boys’ paths drastically diverge. The next step up in possible outcomes would be if the judge gave an order of court supervision. Supervision is essentially the court deciding to delay the case before dismissing it. This is usually given to first time offenders in misdemeanor cases. What would happen is the judge would tell the defendants that if they perform certain requirements (often community service, anger management, etc.) then after a prescribed time period (6 months, 1 year, etc.), the judge would discharge the case. So long as the supervision terminates satisfactorily, this sentence is not technically a conviction.

If we assume for now that all three receive supervision, then the juvenile will be able to expunge his record as soon as he turns 17 or when the supervision terminates, whichever occurs later. For the two adults, it’s not so easy. Typically, when an adult receives supervision for an offense, they will be eligible to expunge the case after a prescribed waiting period (usually two years). However, there are a few notable exceptions to this standard. One of which is that the court may not order an expungement (or sealing) for any conviction or supervision that resulted from a sexual offense committed against a minor. Because the alleged victim is 16-years-old, this exception would apply. So even though the 17 and 19-year-olds would not be convicted in this scenario, they would not be eligible to expunge or seal under Illinois law. Obviously, the same will still hold true for these two if they are convicted of the charge as well.

Once again though, the juvenile would still be able to clear his record easily. In juvenile court, the defendant isn’t found guilty or not guilty, but rather the court will determine if he is “delinquent” of the offense. If the juvenile charged in this case is found delinquent, then he would still be eligible to expunge his record after he turns 21 or five years after the sentence terminates, whichever occurs later.

That’s not to say that the 17 and 19-year-old would be without options. There is always the possibility of executive clemency (Governor’s pardon). But that process is considerably longer and more complicated, and it would likely be many years before they are really good candidates for clemency.

All in all, this case serves as another reminder that relatively arbitrary decision of when a person becomes a legal adult can have large scale consequences.