NCJ Number
95570
Journal
Wayne Law Review Volume: 37 Issue: 3 Dated: (Spring 1981) Pages: 1391-1407
Date Published
1981
Length
17 pages
Annotation
Both Michigan and Federal laws mandating expunction of arrest or conviction data are inconsistent and unclear; Michigan should enact a comprehensive expunction statute similar to New Jersey's.
Abstract
Michigan fingerprints every person arrested for a felony or misdemeanor when the maximum penalty exceeds 92 days imprisonment or a $500 fine, and the attorney general has stated that agencies may fingerprint persons arrested for traffic offenses. Thus, every arrested and incarcerated person could have an arrest record. Michigan law authorizes returning arrest data to the arrestee when no conviction results or when the ultimate disposition, even after conviction, results in case dismissal, but one wonders if all copies of the arrest record sent to State agencies and the FBI are returned to the unconvicted arrestee. Under Michigan law, arrest records are to be returned to a convicted defendant under several conditions: an offense committed before the defendant's 21st birthday, conviction under the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act, possession of certain controlled substances, sentencing delay where probation is available, and spouse abuse cases. A common procedure to eliminate a criminal record or obtain the arrest record is for the convicted person to petition for a new trial. A judge generally will qrant a trial if the convicted person can obtain the prosecutor's stipulation, but the trial rarely is held, because the prosecution will file a nolle prosequi. There is no statutory authorization or requirement, however, that court files in such cases be removed or segregated from other cases or sealed from public view. New Jersey's 1978 law provides relief to one-time offenders who have been rehabilitated. It defines expungement, creates uniform procedures to expunge arrest records without conviction and conviction records, and places the burden directly on the State to prevent an expungement order. The paper has 114 footnotes.