Expungement is a legal process through which an arrest or conviction may be erased from a person's criminal record. Below you will find links to in-depth information on expungement, and state-specific resources on expungement and criminal records.
Rhode Island law sets out a procedure for a first offender
to file a motion to expunge a record of conviction for a
felony or a misdemeanor. Upon request, the Department of
Attorney General’s Bureau of Criminal Identification
Unit (BCI) provides the offender a copy of the conviction
record at a cost. The Judicial Records Center maintains the
criminal complaint which is available for copying. The foregoing
information is needed to complete a motion to expunge.
By law, the motion is filed in the court in which the conviction
took place. A ten-day period is necessary for the offender
to give the Attorney General's Office and the arresting
police department notice that the motion to expunge is being
filed. The court clerk's office will assign a date
at least ten days from the filing date.
If the motion is granted, certified copies of the court
order should be provided to the arresting police department,
the Department of Attorney General, and to the probation
department (if applicable), in order to give notification
that the record has been ordered expunged. Each agency should
destroy its record.
Because the summary set forth above is for informational
purposes only, it is recommended that you contact an attorney
to discuss the procedures for filing such a motion. This
summary information does not guarantee that the record will
be expunged after a motion has been filed.
Contact the Rhode Island Expungement Law Firm of
Joshua Macktaz by Email or
call today at (401) 861-1155 and we
will respond to you as soon as possible.
Back
to Top
EXPUNGEMENT FAQ's
• What is an "expungement"?
"Expungement" is a legal procedure. It allows eligible and deserving individuals to have any and all records relating to their criminal charges removed, both from public records and those of law enforcement agencies.
• What types of criminal charges are eligible for “expungement”?
The law provides that any criminal charge, with the exception
of a "crime of violence", is eligible for expungement.
The law defines a "crime of violence" as follows:
murder, manslaughter, first degree arson, kidnapping with
intent to extort, robbery, larceny from the person, first
degree sexual assault, second degree sexual assault, first
and second degree child molestation, assault with intent
to murder, assault with intent to rob, assault with intent
to commit first degree sexual assault, burglary, and entering
a dwelling house with intent to commit murder, robbery, sexual
assault, or larceny.
Anyone convicted of a "crime of violence" is
ineligible for "expungement".
• Who is eligible to have their criminal record "expunged"?
Anyone who is a “first offender” is eligible
to have their criminal record expunged.
The law defines a "first offender" as follows:
a person who has not been previously convicted of or placed
on probation for a felony or a misdemeanor and against whom
there is no criminal proceeding pending in any court.
Anyone convicted or placed on probation on more than one
occasion is ineligible for expungement.
• How long do I have to wait to have my criminal record “expunged”?
For misdemeanors - (5) years after the successful completion
(no intervening convictions, probation, or pending cases)
of your sentence and/or probation.
For felonies - (10) years after the successful completion
(no intervening convictions, probation, or pending cases)
of your sentence and/or probation
Contact Rhode Island
Expungement Lawyer Joshua
Macktaz by Email or
call today at (401) 861-1155 and we
will respond to you as soon as possible.
• Who determines if I am eligible and deserving to
have my criminal record "expunged"?
Whether you are eligible and deserving of an expungement
must be determined by a judge of the court that originally
heard the case.
As mentioned previously in order to be eligible to have
your criminal record expunged you must be a "first
offender" and not have been convicted of a "crime
of violence".
The law also requires that in order to have your criminal
record expunged you must be deserving of it. That is, you
must be able to demonstrate to the court’s satisfaction
that you are of good moral character; have been rehabilitated
and; the expungement of your criminal record is consistent
with the public interest, proof of which can include but
is not limited to the following:
- Regular employment and financial and other support of family
- Successful completion of substance abuse and/or mental health counseling
- Community or other public service
- Professional certification or licensing in field of employment
- Otherwise eligible for induction into the armed forces of the United States
• How do I go about having my criminal record "expunged"?
By filing a motion to expunge with the court. Some but not
all courts have blank motions to expunge that you can fill
out and file with the court yourself. The court’s Clerk’s
Office may be available to assist you with completing the
necessary paperwork including scheduling the motion for a
hearing and giving you the date that it will be heard by
the court.
After filing the motion to expunge you are required to give
notice of the date that it will be heard by the court to
the Department of Attorney General and the police department
that originally brought the charge.
On the day that your motion to expunge is heard by the court
you should be prepared to provide the following information
about yourself to the judge hearing the motion:
- Have not been convicted or received probation
for a "crime of violence"
- Are a "first
offender"
- Possess good moral character
- Have been successfully rehabilitated
and
- The expungement of your criminal record is consistent
with the public interest
If your motion to expunge is granted, the court will provide you with copies of an order requiring that any and all records relating to the expunged case be deleted from the public record. A copy of this expungement order should be mailed to the Department of Attorney General and any other law enforcement agency known to have copies of these records.
Although in some but not all expungements the assistance of a lawyer may not be necessary, you are entitled to be represented by counsel. If you cannot afford private counsel the Office of the Public Defender may be able to assist you.
• What are the practical effects of having my criminal record "expunged"?
With certain very limited exceptions, any person having
his or her record expunged shall be released from all penalties
and disabilities resulting from the crime of which he or
she had been convicted
again, with certain very limited exceptions, in any application
for employment, license, or other civil right or privilege,
or any appearance as a witness, a person whose conviction
of a crime has been expunged pursuant to this chapter may
state that he or she has never been convicted of the crime.
When applying for employment opportunities, are there
any circumstances in which I would be legally required
to disclose information regarding my expunged criminal
record?
According to RIGL § 12-1 3-4 (b), any person who
is "an applicant for a law enforcement agency position,
for admission to the bar of any court, an applicant for
a teaching certificate, under chapter 11 of title 12, a
coaching certificate under § 16-11. 1-1, or the operator
or employee of an early childhood educational facility
pursuant to chapter 48 1 of title 16," is required
to disclose the fact of a conviction.
Contact Rhode Island Expungement Attorney Joshua
Macktaz by Email or
call today at (401) 861-1155 and we
will respond to you as soon as possible.
Back
to Top |
RHODE ISLAND
LEGAL UPDATE
Without Notice Expungements Almost Expanded
Providence Journal Rhode Island News
11:14 AM EST on Wednesday, November 4, 2009
By Katherine Gregg
Journal State House Bureau
PROVIDENCE –– Amid the chaos of last week’s special legislative session, advocates of a bill that would automatically erase a whole new class of criminal records scored a short-lived victory at the State House.
With no debate on the merits, the House voted 57 to 9 on Thursday for a measure — vetoed by the governor a year ago — that would have required the state’s courts to “quash and destroy” the record of any crime for which an admitted criminal received a “deferred” sentence, regardless of the nature of the crime or criminal history of the offender, as long as he or she stayed out of trouble for five years.
In recent years, criminals receiving deferred sentences included accused stalkers, embezzlers, an accomplice to a gunpoint robbery in Waterplace Park, one of the coconspirators in the Lincoln bribery scandal and at least one child molester. Emerging almost 10 months after its only State House hearing in January, the bill appeared headed for easy passage by the Senate last Thursday. But then it hit an insurmountable snag and died.
Legislative leaders realized they had, in their haste, inadvertently passed a version that the state’s judges, through their lobbyist, had adamantly opposed last January. They renewed their objection after the seemingly dead bill was passed Wednesday by the House Judiciary Committee.
In the hours before the House convened Thursday for the last night of the two-day special session, court lobbyist R. Kelly Sheridan told key lawmakers the state’s judges have no position on the merits of extending the state’s existing expungement law to a new class of people, who may not currently be eligible. He said that is a “legislative call.”
But he said they objected strongly to the “automatic destruction” of any court record, in part, because the decision should be made by a judge after a hearing in which the attorney general has been given a chance to comment.
And, Sheridan said, there is a much larger issue: “Public bodies should not be destroying a record of an official act.”
“It would be akin to the General Assembly destroying evidence of some vote that was taken five years ago. It’s just not appropriate,” Sheridan said this week. The bill was sponsored by Rep. Joseph Almeida, a retired Providence police officer, who argues that a criminal record hampers people from getting jobs and, in some cases, housing.
Year after year, Almeida asks a version of this question he posed in an interview this week: “How long do we keep punishing somebody if many years have gone by and they have not done anything [else] wrong or illegal?”
Rhode Island already has what the governor, the attorney general and the state police describe as one of the most liberal expungement laws in the nation. It allows judges to permanently seal the records of a nonviolent offense by a first-time offender 5 years after the individual has completed his or her sentence for a misdemeanor, 10 years after for a felony.
It also specifically allows those whose records have been expunged to tell prospective employers that they have never been convicted of a crime. Last year, 4,418 criminal case records of first-time offenders were sealed.
Almeida’s bill went a step further in requiring the courts to automatically destroy any public record of any crime that resulted in a deferred sentence, as soon as the deferral period ended, without any waiting period or regard to the nature of the crime, or history of the offender.
Almeida’s bill would have extended the opportunity to an unknown number of people who are not currently eligible, and substantially reduced the waiting period for many of those who are.
A deferred sentence usually comes as a tradeoff for a no-contest or guilty plea that spares the state from having to go to trial. The underlying notion: stay out of trouble, stay out of jail. No specific sentence is initially imposed. Instead, it provides a window of time in which a sentence could be imposed if the offender commits another crime.
An earlier version was vetoed by Governor Carcieri in 2008 on grounds it would “permit expungement for a violent felony … [after] a period of time, that usually runs five years, and by so doing, make it impossible for employers — including the state itself — to do meaningful criminal background checks.”
The governor said the legislation would also allow “early expungement” of offenses that would normally disqualify someone from working with children in a child-care center, as a child-care provider in a private home, or as a foster or adoptive parent.
Rep. Donald Lally, a Narragansett Democrat who is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, described what happened to the bill in last week’s session.
In the months since the House last met in June, he said Almeida “lobbied” House Speaker William J. Murphy and House Majority Leader Gordon D. Fox to resurrect his bill. They agreed and told Lally, as judiciary chairman, that they wanted his committee to vote on it. The bill cleared the committee 9-to-2 Wednesday.
The next day, Sheridan — who had last testified on the bill in January –– presented a letter spelling out the changes the judges wanted: replacement of the words “automatically quashed and destroyed,” with a description of the petition-and-hearing process that applies to current bids for an expungement.
Through a series of miscues, the bill that eventually reached the Senate didn’t have the changes the judge’s requested and there was no final vote.
“You know, last minute, and sometimes things falls through the cracks,” Lally said.
While disappointed his bill failed again this year, Almeida says he’ll “just bring it back again next year … [because] people need a second start in life … and it [is] an issue that we have been fighting for a very long time.”
And Murphy, through a spokesman, said he “is committed to continue to work on the bill toward passage next year.”The House vote Voting yes
Ajello, D-Providence
Almeida, D-Providence
Azzinaro, D-Westerly
Caprio, D-Narragansett
Carnevale, D-Providence
Carter, D-North Kingstown
Coderre, D-Pawtucket
Corvese, D-North Providence
Costantino, D-Providence
DeSimone, D-Providence
Diaz, D-Providence
Driver, D-Richmond
Edwards, D-Tiverton
Ehrhardt, R-North Kingstown
Fellela, D-Johnston
Ferri, D-Warwick
Fierro, D-Woonsocket
Fox, D-Providence
Gallison, D-Bristol
Gemma, D-Warwick
Guthrie, D-Coventry
Handy, D-Cranston
Hearn, D-Barrington
Jackson, D-Newport
Jacquard, D-Cranston
Kennedy, D-Hopkinton
Lally, D-South Kingstown
Lima, D-Cranston
Loughlin, R-Tiverton
MacBeth, D-Cumberland
Malik, D-Warren
Martin, D-Newport
Mattiello, D-Cranston
McCauley, D-Providence
McNamara, D-Warwick
Melo, D-East Providence
Murphy, D-West Warwick
Newberry, R-N. Smithfield
O’Neill, D-Pawtucket
Pacheco, D-Burrillville
Petrarca, D-Lincoln
Pollard, D-Foster
M. Rice, D-South Kingstown
Ruggiero, D-Jamestown
San Bento, D-Pawtucket
Savage, R-East Providence
Segal, D-Providence
Serpa, D-West Warwick
Silva, D-Central Falls
Sullivan, D-Coventry
Trillo, R-Warwick
Vaudreuil, D-Cumberland
Walsh, D-Charlestown
Wasylyk, D-Providence
Watson, R-East Greenwich
Williams, D-Providence
Winfield, D-Smithfield
Voting no
Baldelli-Hunt, D-Woonsocket
Brien, D-Woonsocket
DaSilva, D-East Providence
Gablinske, D-Bristol
Kilmartin, D-Pawtucket
Marcello, D-Scituate
Menard, D-Lincoln
Rice, D-Portsmouth
Schadone, D-North Providence
Did not vote
Flaherty, D-Warwick
Giannini, D-Providence
Naughton, D-Warwick
Palumbo, D-Cranston
Ucci, D-Johnston
Shallcross Smith, D-Lincoln
Ucci, D-Johnston
Williamson, D-Coventry
SOURCE: House roll call |
|
