Despite the fact that a jury found a man not-guilty of the charges against him, all records pertaining to the matter are not able to be expunged says the Court of Appeals in last month’s unpublished opinion State of Minnesota vs. B.H.F.
An expungement is an action to the court to request the sealing of records. Expungments can be sought to seal records of convictions, acquittal of charges, or dismissal of charges. However, the granting of an expungement petition does not necessarily ensure that all records of an arrest, charge, or conviction will be kept from the public. And, simply seeking an expungement does not necessarily mean the records will be sealed, particularly in cases where there was a conviction. If there was a conviction, whether the expungement is granted is left to judicial discretion. Even then, if the judge finds that the benefits to the person seeking the expungement outweigh the risk to the public, oftentimes only the Court records will be sealed. Any records held by the arresting law enforcement department, the Department of Human Services (DHS), or the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) will remain public record. The Court has refused to issue orders to law enforcement, DHS, or the BCA to seal records on the basis that the Courts do not have the authority to issue an order to an executive-branch agency as to how to handle its own records. This can be troublesome as it is common for background checks to be done using BCA records, and DHS can notify an employer that an employee is not eligible to work in certain settings. Thus, in cases where an expungement was granted, it is common for people to still encounter difficulties resulting from a criminal conviction.
B.H.F. was acquitted by a jury of two counts of first-degree attempted murder and two counts of second-degree attempted murder on the grounds that he acted in self-defense. Minnesota state law allows for an expungement to be sought and records of arrest, charges, and verdict to be sealed “if all pending actions or proceedings were resolved in favor of petitioner.” Minn. Stat. § 609A.02, subd. 3 (2010). And, “the court shall grant the petition to seal the record unless the agency or jurisdiction whose records would be affected establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the interests of the public and public safety outweigh the disadvantages to the petitioner of not sealing the record.” Minn. Stat. § 609A.03, subd. 5 (2010).
B.H.F. petitioned the district court for expungement in June of 2009, but was denied. He again petitioned the court for expungement in February of 2011, reasserting his statutory right to expungement, as well as the denial of employment and volunteer opportunities due to his criminal record. The Ramsey County Attorney’s Office and the Roseville Police Department opposed his request on public safety grounds. The district court granted the petition to expunge the court records, but denied the request to expunge records held by executive-branch agencies.
On appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s order that the executive-branch agency records would not be expunged. The Court of Appeals found that while “all relevant proceedings were resolved in B.H.F.’s favor,” the opposing agencies have the burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that the disadvantage to petitioner of the records remaining open is outweighed by the interests of the public. Since the district court found B.H.F.’s behavior pertaining to the criminal charges to be “extraordinarily reckless” as he retrieved a loaded gun, the public has a right to know about his actions. The Court of Appeals while unwilling to overturn the district court’s findings, did offer a glimmer of hope in that B.H.F. may still petition the court for an expungement of the executive-agency records under an inherent authority argument.