Proposed bill seeks to expunge court records from public access

A proposed bill passed by the judiciary committee last week would allow not guilty verdicts and dismissed criminal charges to be expunged from court records that the public could access on Iowa Courts Online.

Defense attorneys, some legal organizations and legislators passionately support the bill, saying it's necessary to eliminate unfair treatment of individuals acquitted or wrongly charged. They say defendants in these situations have missed out on job opportunities, education, and even housing when a criminal record exists.

Prosecutors and the Iowa Newspapers Association are against the bill, saying they favor open records and 'it's the public's right to know.”

Iowa Rep. Mary Wolfe, D-Clinton, sponsor of the original house bill which is now amended to senate version, SF 385, said as a defense attorney she saw clients losing jobs because they had a charge but were acquitted or the charge was dismissed.

'Courts online doesn't explain what it means or what happened,” Wolfe said. 'People assume you are guilty if you're charged and it's not fair.”

Tom Viner, a Cedar Rapids attorney, agreed that it's an issue when a defendant is acquitted but the record remains online and it only notes 'Jury Trial.” The unproven accusation is a misrepresentation of a person. Items on the internet are often taken as truth, he said.

Thomas Farnsworth, an Iowa City attorney, said it's not uncommon for a person to be wrongfully accused and this just allows those charges to be removed from public record.

Lisa Davis-Cook, Iowa Association of Justice director of Government Affairs, said people are often seen as criminals because the charge is on their record.

'Iowans should not lose out on employment, housing or education because their name is associated with a crime that they were never convicted of,” Davis-Cook said.

Linn County Attorney Jerry Vander Sanden said it 'seems like they're creating a solution for something that's not a problem.” If the person is acquitted, that record could be useful. Many times, if it's a serious charge, it may be reported in the newspaper or online any way.

'The arrest record will still exist,” Vander Sanden said. 'An employer can inquire if they've been arrested. And I would think the public has the right to know. Why would you want to expunge court records in any way?”

Vander Sanden said he thinks the taxpayers probably want to know what his office is doing and why they dismiss charges. If charges are dismissed, there will be paperwork explaining it. This bill would hide open records, he said.

Alan Ostergren, Muscatine County Attorney, agreed that it's hiding what the court has done and people have the right to know what goes on in the judicial system. 'I think people can recognize the difference when someone is found not guilty.”

Corwin Richie, president of the Iowa County Attorneys Association, said the organization is opposed to this bill because it 'changes or hides history.” Dave Stanley, president of INA, said this bill attempts to eliminate the fact that a person was charged or acquitted.

'But it did happen,” Stanley said. 'We favor open records. These are taxpayer dollars being spent (on court proceedings) and the public has a right know.”

Chris Mudge, INA executive director, said 'it's a continuous battle to keep records open.” She also pointed out that these charges can't be completely expunged from the public because it may be in a newspaper or on the internet.

Richie said the 'good news is” this version of the bill is improved and much narrower than the original. It will only affect a limited number of people and there are stipulations that must be met before the record is expunged.

Sen. Rich Taylor, D-Mt. Pleasant, one of the bill's sponsors, said the senate version did tighten up some things and has several stipulations. He thinks this version can pass.

Stipulations include: a defendant must make an application for the expunged records; all court and legal fees must be paid in full; the dismissal must be with prejudice – meaning the prosecutor doesn't intend to refile charges; all parties such as an alleged victim are notified; a person can't be charged in a related case; all charges in one case would have to be dismissed or defendant acquitted of all charges to be expunged; and charges dismissed due to being found not guilty by reason of insanity or incompetent to stand trial can't be expunged.

Taylor said the proposed bill hasn't been put on the calendar for vote at this time.