L.R. NO. 1463-01
BILL NO. SB 426
SUBJECT: Expungement of Criminal Records
TYPE: Original
DATE: February 19, 2001
Net Effect on All State Funds * Does not include unknown costs to CTS and DOC. Net Effect on All Federal Funds Numbers within parentheses: ( ) indicate costs or losses. This fiscal note contains 6 pages. ASSUMPTION Officials from the Office of State Courts Administrator (CTS), in response to a similar
proposal in the prior session, assume the proposed legislation would be retroactive and a large
unknown number of petitions could be filed, especially in the first few years. CTS states there
have been between 60,000 and 63,000 convictions or guilty pleas in recent years that could fit the
definition of the qualifying crimes. CTS does not have access to data on the numbers of cases
from over fifteen years ago where the defendant has had no subsequent conviction nor age-of-defendant information, which illustrates the potential size of the fiscal impact. There is also no
provision made to notify agencies which have records of the prior conviction of the
expungement. CTS assumes the proposal could have a significant fiscal impact on the budget of
the judiciary, but the extent of the cost would depend upon the number of petitions actually filed. Officials from the Department of Corrections (DOC), in response to a similar proposal in the
prior session, assume they have the means available to electronically delete the certain criminal
conviction records referred to in this proposal. However, conviction records contained or
referred to in written files will have to be removed manually as those records would have been
stored during the intervening years at State Archives. It is estimated that a minimum of 4 hours
of clerical assistance would be expended at $10 per hour to locate and delete the record. The
DOC has no means to predict the number of manual expungements that would be required. New commitments which could result from the creation of the offense(s) outlined in this
proposal could not be accurately determined. In addition, changes in penalty provisions for
current crimes could result in additional costs due to new commitments and/or longer sentences.
The utilization of these laws for both new offenses and enhanced penalties for current offenses
depend upon actions of prosecutors and the courts. If additional persons were sentenced to the custody of the DOC due to the provisions of this
legislation, the DOC would incur a corresponding increase in operational costs either through
incarceration (average of $35.00 per inmate, per day) or through supervision provided by the
Board of Probation and Parole (average of $3.50 per offender, per day). The need for additional capital improvements would not be anticipated at this time. It must be
noted that the cumulative effect of various new legislation, if adopted, could result in the need for
additional capital improvements funding if the total number of new offenders exceeds current
planned capacity. ASSUMPTION (continued) Due to the wide variance of crimes and punishments including newly created crimes and
punishments, the fiscal impact as it relates to the DOC is unknown, but not estimated to exceed
$100,000 annually. Officials from the Department of Public Safety - Missouri State Highway Patrol (MHP), in
response to a similar proposal in the prior session, assume the proposal would have a significant
fiscal impact on their budget due to the great number of sealed record requests anticipated.
According to MHP, there are approximately 200,000 individuals without an arrest in the past ten
years that would be eligible (pursuant to this proposal) to have criminal charges expunged.
Assuming that a Quality Control person could seal 12 records per day, MHP assumes they would
require 70 FTE Quality Control Clerks ($17,736) to handle the expungements within three years.
Furthermore, MHP assumes their Criminal Records Division would require 8 FTE Data Entry
Clerks ($17,112) and 1 FTE Fingerprint Technician ($20,172), plus related fringe benefits,
equipment, and operating expenses to carry out the provisions of this proposal. MHP further
assumes the proposal would require the construction of a new building for the additional 79FTE.
MHP estimates construction costs at $477,020, janitorial costs at $4,148, and utility costs at
$6,637. Additionally, MHP assumes their Information Systems Division would be required to develop
automated procedures to address the sealing of records for those individuals who meet the
provisions of this proposal. MHP assumes two batch procedures would be required at 75 hours
each. The current state contact price for consulting services is $110 per hour. Therefore, MHP
assumes the total cost for these procedures would be $16,500 ($110 x 2 x 75 hours). MHP
assumes that once a record meeting this criteria has been sealed, it would be treated in the same
manner as all other closed records. If the rules regarding who can and cannot receive the sealed
records (and for what purpose) is different than the rules for closed records, then such a practice
would have an additional impact on MHP. MHP's Traffic Division would also be affected by this proposal. This division enters roughly
300,000 records in to the Traffic Arrest System/Alcohol and Drug Offense Record System
(TAS/ADORS) per year with an estimated total of 2 million records in the database prior to
1999. Based on the provisions of this proposal, MHP officials estimate that 100,000 records
would meet the criteria for expungement but only 50,000 would actually be sealed. If the
average FTE could expunge 10 records per hour and the FTE works 1,856 hours per year, three
(3) Quality Control Clerks would be requested to expunge the 50,000 records. ASSUMPTION (continued) In response to a nearly identical proposal from a previous legislative session, MHP officials
estimated the number of eligible persons at 268,000. Oversight assumes all of the estimated
268,000 eligible persons would not file a petition requesting their criminal records to be sealed.
There is no way to estimate the number of sealed records that could result from this proposal;
however, Oversight assumes that number would be significantly less than 268,000. Oversight
assumes MHP would require 10 FTE Quality Control Clerk I's, plus equipment and operating
expenses to carry out the provisions of this proposal. If, after experience with the new
procedures outlined in this proposal, the workload proves that additional FTE are required, it is
assumed additional FTE could be requested in the normal budget process. Oversight assumes the
MHP expenses would be charged to the Criminal Records System Fund. Officials from the Office of Prosecution Services (OPS), in response to a similar proposal in
the prior session, assume the proposal would have no fiscal impact on their agency. OPS further
assumes that any increase in caseload for local prosecutors as a result of this proposal would be
minimal and could be absorbed with existing resources. Officials from the Office of the State Public Defender, the Department of Transportation, the
Department of Revenue, and the Office of the Attorney General, in response to a similar
proposal in the prior session, assume the proposed legislation would have no fiscal impact on
their agencies. FISCAL IMPACT - State Government FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 (10 Mo.) GENERAL REVENUE FUND Costs - Office of State Courts Administrator (Unknown) (Unknown) (Unknown) Costs - Department of Corrections (Unknown) (Unknown) (Unknown) ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON GENERAL REVENUE FUND (Unknown) (Unknown) (Unknown) FISCAL IMPACT - State Government FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 (continued) (10 Mo.) CRIMINAL RECORDS SYSTEM FUND Costs - Department of Public Safety Missouri State Highway Patrol (MHP) Personal Service (10 FTE) ($147,800) ($181,794) ($186,339) Fringe Benefits (56,725) (69,773) (71,517) Equipment and Expense (37,435) (6,335) (6,335) Total Costs - MHP ($241,960) ($257,902) ($264,191) ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON CRIMINAL RECORDS SYSTEM ($241,960) ($257,902) ($264,191) FISCAL IMPACT - Local Government FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 (10 Mo.) 0 0 0 FISCAL IMPACT - Small Business No direct fiscal impact to small businesses would be expected as a result of this proposal. DESCRIPTION The proposal would create the Missouri Rehabilitation and Sealed Records Act. It would allow
the court, after considering all the circumstances, to close a person's criminal and juvenile
records. A person would be eligible to petition the court to have his or her records closed if the petitioner
was more than 25. In addition, the petitioner must have less than 2 felony convictions; less than
3 misdemeanor convictions; no misdemeanor or felony convictions for at least 10 consecutive
years after release from prison or discharge from probation; no convictions for a violent felony, a
sex offense, or class A or B felony distribution of controlled substances; no convictions for
operating a commercial motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content of .04% or more; and no
previous petitions to have the petitioner's record closed.
ASSUMPTION (continued) Also, the petitioner would be prohibited from bringing a civil action against a law enforcement
agency relating to the arrest or conviction described in the closed records after the closure of the
records. In addition, the petitioner would be prohibited from employment by any licensed
gambling operation. Persons who knowingly failed to close or release closed information would
be guilty of a class B misdemeanor. Persons who knew the records were closed and used the
information for financial gain would be guilty of a class D felony. This legislation is not federally mandated, would not duplicate any other program, and would not
require additional capital improvements or rental space. NOT RESPONDING Office of State Courts Administrator Office of the Attorney General Department of Public Safety - Missouri State Highway Patrol Department of Corrections Jeanne Jarrett, CPA Director February 19, 2001
FUND AFFECTED
FY 2002
FY 2003
FY 2004 General Revenue
(Unknown)
(Unknown)
(Unknown) Criminal Records
($241,960)
($257,902)
($264,191) Total Estimated
($241,960 to
Unknown)*
($257,902 to
Unknown)*
($264,191 to
Unknown)*
FUND AFFECTED
FY 2002
FY 2003
FY 2004 None
Total Estimated
$0
$0
$0
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON LOCAL FUNDS FUND AFFECTED
FY 2002
FY 2003
FY 2004 Local Government
$0
$0
$0