Preview:

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A07-71 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. V.A.J., Appellant. Filed February 12, 2008 Reversed and remanded Worke, Judge Concurring specially, Shumaker, Judge Hennepin County District Court File No. 99073467 Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Paul R. Kempainen, Assistant Attorney General, 1800 Bremer Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101; Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, William Richardson, Assistant County Attorney, C-1200 Hennepin County Government Center, 300 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55487; and David K. Ross, Carlson, Clelland & Schreder, Brooklyn Center Assistant City Attorney, 6300 Shingle Creek Parkway, Suite 305, Minneapolis, MN 55430 (for respondent) Roberta B. Walburn, Anne M. Lockner, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, L.L.P., 2800 LaSalle Plaza, 800 LaSalle Avenue, Minneapolis, MN 55402 (for appellant) Considered and decided by Shumaker, Presiding Judge; Klaphake, Judge; and Worke, Judge. SYLLABUS A district court's inherent authority to expunge criminal records includes judicially created records disseminated to an executive agency that maintains custodianship over

those records, including judicially created records maintained by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. OPINION WORKE, Judge On appeal from the district court's order granting her request for expungement of a misdemeanor-theft conviction but limiting the expungement to judicial-branch records, appellant argues that because the record maintained by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension was not included in the district court's order, she did not receive an effective remedy. We reverse and remand. FACTS Appellant V.A.J. was charged with gross-misdemeanor theft after she left a store with merchandise she did not purchase. In April 2000, appellant pleaded guilty to misdemeanor theft. In May 2006, appellant petitioned for expungement of the Appellant sought an expungement for employment

misdemeanor-theft conviction.

purposes because she had been denied positions because of her criminal record. Appellant was also scheduled to earn a finance degree and was concerned that her conviction would prevent her from using her degree to secure future employment. The city attorney and the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) objected to the petition. The district court granted appellant's petition, finding that there was "clear and convincing evidence that the benefit to [appellant] is greater than the disadvantage to the public." But the district court also found that because there was no infringement of appellant's constitutional rights, the court lacked inherent authority to expunge non2

judicial records and ordered the sealing of only judicial-branch records. Thus, the order did not extend to records held by the executive branch of government, including the BCA. Appellant now challenges the district court's order, arguing that she has not realized a meaningful remedy because the expungement did not reach BCA records, which are the records employers regularly rely on for criminal-background checks. ISSUE Did the district court err in concluding that it lacked inherent authority to expunge records held by the executive branch? ANALYSIS The district court's determination that courts have limited inherent authority to expunge executive-branch records is a question of law, which this court reviews de novo. State v. T.M.B., 590 N.W.2d 809, 811 (Minn. App. 1999) (citing Hibbing Educ. Ass'n v. Pub. Employment Relations Bd., 369 N.W.2d 527, 529 (Minn. 1985)), review denied (Minn. June 16, 1999). There are two legal bases for the expungement of criminal records: Minnesota Statutes chapter 609A and a court's inherent authority. State v. Ambaye, 616 N.W.2d 256, 257 (Minn. 2000). This case involves the exercise of the district court's inherent authority. The district court has inherent authority to expunge its own records in two situations: when the petitioner's constitutional rights may be seriously infringed by not expunging the record and when "expungement will yield a benefit to the petitioner commensurate with the disadvantages to the public from the elimination of the record and the burden on the court in issuing, enforcing and monitoring an expungement order." Id.

3

at 258. Here, the district court granted expungement of appellant's judicial records after weighing the interests; that ruling has not been appealed. Appellant argues that the district court erred by not extending the expungement order, under its inherent authority, to records maintained by the BCA in order to provide a meaningful remedy. A district court has inherent authority to expunge records when "necessary to the performance of [] unique judicial functions." State v. C.A., 304 N.W.2d 353, 358 (Minn. 1981). The court's inherent authority to control judicial functions includes control over court records and agents of the court. Id. When a court orders

expungement by way of inherent authority it "must proceed cautiously in exercising that authority in order to respect the equally unique authority of the executive and legislative branches of government." Id. at 359. But this does not mean that a court is precluded from sealing records controlled by other branches of government when doing so is necessary or conducive to providing a meaningful remedy for the petitioner. Id. at 35960. Judicial intrusions upon the functions of the other branches of government are permissible in limited situations. T.M.B., 590 N.W.2d at 812. The judiciary, by means of its inherent authority, is able to protect against actions by the other branches of government that could "curtail its powers, impair its efficiency, or otherwise preclude it from accomplishing the purpose for which it was created." Id. at 811 (citing In re Clerk of Lyon County Courts' Comp., 308 Minn. 172, 177, 241 N.W.2d 781, 784 (1976)). The judiciary may intrude upon other branches of government in order to vindicate a

4

petitioner's legal rights or in order to protect the judiciary's strength and independence. Id. at 813. The BCA maintains criminal-history records for the entire state, information received in part from the judicial branch. With the surge in the Internet industry, Not

increased reuse, sharing and sale of criminal records is largely unregulated.

surprisingly, with the increasing capabilities of electronic sharing of information and increased public availability of criminal records, the extent of judicial intrusion upon the functions of other branches in furnishing expungement remedies requires clarification and direction. Reconciling the line of expungement cases gives authority to the district court, in the exercise of its inherent authority, to seal records that were initially created and developed through the judicial process and are presently being held by an executive agency, in the case of BCA records, public information.1 See Minn. Stat.

Download A07-71,State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. V.A.J., Appellant..pdf

Minnesota Law