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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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).