Senators push police reform bill: Expungement allows for not telling police of past crimes when applying for LTC?

[Reptile]

NORTHAMPTON — Senators on Beacon Hill are expected to vote on a sprawling police reform bill Thursday and some local lawmakers are pushing for its quick passage.

The bill, S.2800, was unveiled earlier this week and, among other initiatives, would create a process for the certification and decertification of police officers in the state; impose bans on chokeholds and further limit use of force; ban the use of facial surveillance technology; redirect funding from the authorities to other community resources, and introduce new training requirements for police officers on the history of racism.

Leaders in both the Senate and House, which is working on its own police reform bill, have said they want to pass legislation on the matter before the end of formal sessions on July 31 and send a final draft to Gov. Charlie Baker, according to published news reports.
....
The bill would also work to demilitarize police forces by requiring civilian authorization for some equipment purchases, end the requirement for the employment of school resource officers and expand access of record expungement by allowing young people with more than one juvenile charge to qualify for expungement.

Daily Hampshire Gazette

The Daily Hampshire Gazette is the essential daily news source for the Pioneer Valley from Northampton, MA, in Franklin County.

www.gazettenet.com

So, does this mean that when applying for a LTC, an applicant with an expungement does not have to tell their crimes?

 

[308rifleman]

S.2800 sounds like a good start. Unfortunately, there will likely be a push-back from the politically-powerful police unions and police chiefs in this state. MA is unique WRT chiefs having all of the power.

 

[Lank]

looks like the applies to yoots only. It should provide expungement to all

 

[Baby Billy]

How would an expungement change anything with regard to an LTC app? Wouldn't you still have to disclose it?

"Have you ever been arrested or appeared in court as a defendant for any criminal offense?"

IANAL.

 

[Boris]

they will throw out everything that matters and will leave everything that sucks tax payer dollars (history of racism and hack jobs) and declare a victory. f*** this shit and f*** those smug a**h***s.

 

[Reptile]

How would an expungement change anything with regard to an LTC app? Wouldn't you still have to disclose it?

"Have you ever been arrested or appeared in court as a defendant for any criminal offense?"

IANAL.

If its expunged you should not have to disclose it.

If you do disclose you could be found unsuitable.

What good is an expungement if you have to disclose it?

 

[Baby Billy]

If its expunged you should not have to disclose it.

If you do disclose you could be found unsuitable.

What good is an expungement if you have to disclose it?

I guess that's a question for the lawyers. If the question was "Do you have a criminal record?" then I would think the appropriate answer would be no - if the record was expunged.

If you lie on the application, couldn't you also be deemed unsuitable?

 

[one-eyed Jack]

"Upon determining that the person is suitable, " THE PD MAY ISSUE THE LICENSE FOR ANY REASON" That won't go away. Jack.

 

[Reptile]

I guess that's a question for the lawyers. If the question was "Do you have a criminal record?" then I would think the appropriate answer would be no - if the record was expunged.

If you lie on the application, couldn't you also be deemed unsuitable?

They should have a provision to act as if it never happened.

"Legal Fiction" is where you get to totally omit the arrest, charges, court, and punishment.

You are telling a lie when you say no but it's ok legally.

 

[Spicolii]

A friend of mine went to renew his ltc recently. Under the " have you appeared in court before" part he wrote " not since last time". He honestly didn't realize you had to fill it out every time.

I guess they were cool and helped him finish it properly. I believe he even said the girl that worked there was cute.

 

[Baby Billy]

They should have a provision to act as if it never happened.

"Legal Fiction" is where you get to totally omit the arrest, charges, court, and punishment.

You are telling a lie when you say no but it's ok legally.

There is no such provision in the way the question is asked. Which is why I'm curious what a lawyer thinks, but I'm not going to pay for it.

 

[Salty Veteran]

Couple of thoughts. I do think its interesting that MA is finally looking at options for expungement with this bill and the bill introduced last year. I also find it very interesting that it is extremely limited in what can be expunged, and also the age of the individual...only for people 21 or younger, "youthful indiscretion" they say.

A scenario exists where a 30 year old who has a felony conviction under their belt is able to get that felony expunged, but a 30 year old with a misdemeanor under their belt is unable to get that conviction expunged. The 30 year old with the Felony could have been convicted at 20 and the 30 year old with the misdemeanor convicted at 23.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

How would an expungement change anything with regard to an LTC app? Wouldn't you still have to disclose it?

"Have you ever been arrested or appeared in court as a defendant for any criminal offense?"

IANAL.

There is the concept of "legal fiction", in which case the law mandates a ruth that isn't. With expungement in most (all?) states, the doctrine means that "No" is a legally truthful answer to "Have you ever been screwed over by the courts" if the record was expunged (not sealed).

Legally qualifying that expungement creates this legal fiction is only 30% of the battle. The other 70% is getting the police departments to accept the concept, and even expunged records have a habit of showing up - local police records, someone heard that someone heard that .... (allowed under the relaxed standards of evidence in an LTC appeal), etc.

The legal fiction concept of answering "No" already exists for many out of state expungements. I have never heard of a police department accepting that legal concept, despite the fact that the law is quite clear. It's "police law" vs. "legislative law".

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Couple of thoughts. I do think its interesting that MA is finally looking at options for expungement with this bill and the bill introduced last year. I also find it very interesting that it is extremely limited in what can be expunged, and also the age of the individual...only for people 21 or younger, "youthful indiscretion" they say.

A scenario exists where a 30 year old who has a felony conviction under their belt is able to get that felony expunged, but a 30 year old with a misdemeanor under their belt is unable to get that conviction expunged. The 30 year old with the Felony could have been convicted at 20 and the 30 year old with the misdemeanor convicted at 23.

Details please on MA expungement. I know there are procedures for having it not appear on some CORI level searches (details on the levels at Levels of name-based criminal record check access) used by potential employers, however, complete expungement where it disappears from the LEO visible only vesion is all but unheard of in MA.

Note that the posted access list on the page I cited does not showing any private sector entity having access to a Required 4. I believe the BOP is also checked (or perhaps checked instead) which does not filter data and is not generally if at all expungable.

 

[drgrant]

Couple of thoughts. I do think its interesting that MA is finally looking at options for expungement with this bill and the bill introduced last year. I also find it very interesting that it is extremely limited in what can be expunged, and also the age of the individual...only for people 21 or younger, "youthful indiscretion" they say.

A scenario exists where a 30 year old who has a felony conviction under their belt is able to get that felony expunged, but a 30 year old with a misdemeanor under their belt is unable to get that conviction expunged. The 30 year old with the Felony could have been convicted at 20 and the 30 year old with the misdemeanor convicted at 23.

IIRC there are a lot of people DQed in MA for an LTC, based on some weird juvie shit though they did 100 years ago. I seem to recall an army specops guy who got denied an LTC in mass at one point because he shot some kid in the arm with a BB gun when he was like 12 or some bullshit, and this was a "weapon violation" and a DQ.

 

[teamRR]

In MA my understanding is an actual expungement is effectively as close as you can get to a deletion of everything the state has on it. I was once told that MA probation vehemently objects to expungements (which are for extremely limited circumstances regardless) because they lose sight of the history.

 

[teamRR]

I think MA is probably one of the worst states in the country as far as generating and lacking relief for BS federal DQ's. This sounds to be a youngin thing but its a start.

Not that it stands a chance of being brought up but in the federal statue they could really use a concept of minor DQ records aging out. I really can't imagine a huge resistance to 20 year old DUI's becoming impertinent.

 

[Darksideblues42]

NORTHAMPTON — Senators on Beacon Hill are expected to vote on a sprawling police reform bill Thursday and some local lawmakers are pushing for its quick passage.

The bill, S.2800, was unveiled earlier this week and, among other initiatives, would create a process for the certification and decertification of police officers in the state; impose bans on chokeholds and further limit use of force; ban the use of facial surveillance technology; redirect funding from the authorities to other community resources, and introduce new training requirements for police officers on the history of racism.

Leaders in both the Senate and House, which is working on its own police reform bill, have said they want to pass legislation on the matter before the end of formal sessions on July 31 and send a final draft to Gov. Charlie Baker, according to published news reports.
....
The bill would also work to demilitarize police forces by requiring civilian authorization for some equipment purchases, end the requirement for the employment of school resource officers and expand access of record expungement by allowing young people with more than one juvenile charge to qualify for expungement.

Daily Hampshire Gazette

The Daily Hampshire Gazette is the essential daily news source for the Pioneer Valley from Northampton, MA, in Franklin County.

www.gazettenet.com

So, does this mean that when applying for a LTC, an applicant with an expungement does not have to tell their crimes?

Seeing how the police are civilians, what the hell does the civilian oversight on purchases mean?

 

[greencobra]

complete expungement where it disappears from the LEO visible only vesion is all but unheard of in MA.

jesus, this is true. a work acquaintance got caught up in this web. wasn't a juvenile offense in his case but the point is, his "offense" was expunged but anyone who looked could see it still. law enforcement knew what was expunged and a background check to get into a gun club picked up something on the radar but told them no details. shit follows you around and comes back to bite you in the ass. this was 30 years ago so maybe things have eased a little?

 

[Len-2A Training]

Details please on MA expungement. I know there are procedures for having it not appear on some CORI level searches (details on the levels at Levels of name-based criminal record check access) used by potential employers, however, complete expungement where it disappears from the LEO visible only vesion is all but unheard of in MA.

Note that the posted access list on the page I cited does not showing any private sector entity having access to a Required 4. I believe the BOP is also checked (or perhaps checked instead) which does not filter data and is not generally if at all expungable.

Police use a BOP and I'm not aware of ANYTHING ever removed from a BOP. Also, court records are a mess and I can't see any court clerk's office spending the time searching some old records and destroying them. Then you have the "in-house" computer systems and from my experience, I can tell you that no way in hell would my MA PD ever delete any records of anything.

Bottom line is that no matter what law they pass, your past will haunt you forever in MA.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Seeing how the police are civilians, what the hell does the civilian oversight on purchases mean?

Webster considers police non-civilians by one accepted definition. You may declare Webster to be wrong, however, this is why you hear terms like "civilian oversight of police" (an oxymoron in the DPRM).

I can tell you that no way in hell would my MA PD ever delete any records of anything.

At the local level, this will generally include all calls for police services to your house, even if it was a simple as reporting mailbox vandalism.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Not that it stands a chance of being brought up but in the federal statue they could really use a concept of minor DQ records aging out. I really can't imagine a huge resistance to 20 year old DUI's becoming impertinent.

The problem is that fixing it would require either a federal change to 18 USC 922(g), or changing the maximum penalty nobody gets o first offense no-injury OUI from 2.5 years to 2 years. The later only requires getting a bunch of legislator to agree to be seen and being soft on OUI for the purpose of helping gun owners.

The only chance seems to be to litigate acceptance of FLRB relief at the federal level, but it is difficult to find an untainted plaintiff. One obstacle is the person must have NEVER possessed, even temporarily at a range, a firearm (general, not MA definition) after the 2.5 year conviction because that would expose the person to possible federal prosecution as a PP.

 

[Salty Veteran]

The problem is that fixing it would require either a federal change to 18 USC 922(g), or changing the maximum penalty nobody gets o first offense no-injury OUI from 2.5 years to 2 years. The later only requires getting a bunch of legislator to agree to be seen and being soft on OUI for the purpose of helping gun owners.

I recently had an Email discussion with a state senator about this very issue. I was talking about this situation. Said that the state could change the length of a first offense OUI from 2.5 to 2 but nobody wouldn't want to seem being soft on OUI so we can throw that out the window lol.

However, I did say that the state could establish a means to set-aside cases after a certain time period. Wouldn't that satisfy the Feds in accordance with the language on the 4473? "under the law of the jurisdiction where the conviction occurred, the person has been pardoned, the conviction has been expunged or set aside, or the person has had their civil rights (the right to vote, sit on a jury, and hold public office) taken away and later restored"

This is what I had said in my email -would be for the state to put forward an option to have a conviction “Set-aside” with no restrictions on shipping, receiving or transporting firearms. The case could be used against you in future incidents ( if a 2004 OUI is set aside, and you receive another in 2020 it would count as a second OUI.)

The state would have what they want, the option to GET CHA if you can't clean up your act. It also, gives those the ability to protect themselves if they have gone 5,7,10 years without any future offense.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

However, I did say that the state could establish a means to set-aside cases after a certain time period

We already have that, and it is used in a very large percentage of cases - it's called CWOF. The standard first offense OUI sentence in MA is a CWOF with a 90-24D alcohol education program. I have also seen this applied to other PP generating offenses like a secure storage charge.

CWOFs are on the record but are not statutory prohibitors. They also count as convictions for the purposes predicate offense sentencing enhancement or commercial driving licenses.

A side effect is that this can deprive an innocent person of a trial. The deal is "accept the CWOF, accept the fee and record, or go to trial. If you win you'll still have an arrest record but not a conviction, and if you lose, you become a federally PP for life". Even the innocent would be inclined to take such a deal.

 

[Darksideblues42]

Webster considers police non-civilians by one accepted definition. You may declare Webster to be wrong, however, this is why you hear terms like "civilian oversight of police" (an oxymoron in the DPRM).

At the local level, this will generally include all calls for police services to your house, even if it was a simple as reporting mailbox vandalism.

I am going by the definition of Civilian as defined in International Law, using the legal terminology in such international agreements as The Geneva Convention. Police, unless they are paramilitary forces outside the civil command structure, or declared to be active forces by a belligerent party, are considered civilians.

Just because people use the word the wrong way long enough for someone to accept it as a definition, does not make the usage correct.

By the logic of "Webster's says it is" then an AR-15 is an assault rifle, because they have a listed accepted definition of "a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire"

Using a popular definition, rather than a legal one to craft laws and policy with the force of law, is the path to ruin of society.

 

[MisterHappy]

In MA my understanding is an actual expungement is effectively as close as you can get to a deletion of everything the state has on it. I was once told that MA probation vehemently objects to expungements (which are for extremely limited circumstances regardless) because they lose sight of the history.

That's the point of expungement. If it's expunged, then there is (legally) no history to see.

The whole point of the CoP Discretion, is so that a person that is, "Known to the Police," but who has never been convicted, can be kept from getting a permission slip.

It sucks when someone who is "obviously" guilty beats the rap...but that's the way the game is supposed to be played.

 

[MisterHappy]

I am going by the definition of Civilian as defined in International Law, using the legal terminology in such international agreements as The Geneva Convention. Police, unless they are paramilitary forces outside the civil command structure, or declared to be active forces by a belligerent party, are considered civilians.

Just because people use the word the wrong way long enough for someone to accept it as a definition, does not make the usage correct.

By the logic of "Webster's says it is" then an AR-15 is an assault rifle, because they have a listed accepted definition of "a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire"

Using a popular definition, rather than a legal one to craft laws and policy with the force of law, is the path to ruin of society.

A living language changes the usage and definition of words all the time, not always for the better:


View: https://www.npr.org/2020/07/07/887649010/regardless-of-what-you-think-irregardless-is-a-word


It's akin to One Hundred Dollars being expressed as, "100$," as opposed to, "$100."

My favorite legal one is the term "Disorderly House" in the MGLs. Originally it meant "Brothel", but that word was too crude to use in polite society. Over time, the Disorderly House statute has been used to jam up parents that have kids that throw parties while Mom and Dad are away.

It ain't right (yes, I know that I'm using "ain't" incorrectly, but it's for rhetorical effect "

 

[Darksideblues42]

A living language changes the usage and definition of words all the time, not always for the better:


View: https://www.npr.org/2020/07/07/887649010/regardless-of-what-you-think-irregardless-is-a-word


It's akin to One Hundred Dollars being expressed as, "100$," as opposed to, "$100."

My favorite legal one is the term "Disorderly House" in the MGLs. Originally it meant "Brothel", but that word was too crude to use in polite society. Over time, the Disorderly House statute has been used to jam up parents that have kids that throw parties while Mom and Dad are away.

It ain't right (yes, I know that I'm using "ain't" incorrectly, but it's for rhetorical effect "

So anyone with an AR-15 has an assault rifle now?

 

[MisterHappy]

Well, it depends on whom is defining stuff. That's why the original AWB listed specific brands, models, etc.: so that there would be no linguistic confusion, when it came to technical matters.

And, yes, if you asked any non-shooter (and some Fudds), an AR-15 is definitely an "assault rifle." This is why I don't use the term "weapon" regarding any firearm. "Weapon," to me, is an instrument designed to harm another person. Since I have a milsurp or two, its possible that those have been so used, but my Trap shottie is definitely not.

I'm not saying that I agree with the situation, just that it exists. "Queer," used to be pejorative, now it's normal. It's a short distance from confusing "Clip" and "Magazine" to "the shoulder thing that goes up."

 

[Waher]

Silly you, thinking the legislature won't make sure that nothing in any bill will ever benefit lawful gun owners.

There will be a 'cuz GUUUUNNNNZ' exemption and if one doesn't exist a Ma**h*** judge or the AG will 'interpret' one from the bench for the legislature.