 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Chesley6/22/2004
concluded that while vested with the power to seal records under § 46-18-204, MCA, the court did not have the power to expunge criminal records and it denied Chesley's motion.
Chesley argues that Montana courts have the inherent power to expunge a record absent statutory authority. He refers to other jurisdictions' conclusions that the judiciary has inherent power to expunge records. See U.S. v. Steelwright (D. Md. 2002), 179 F.Supp.2d 567, 573 (concluding absent statutory authority, courts may grant expungement when extreme or exceptional circumstances exist); Davidson v. Dill (Colo. 1972), 503 P.2d 157, 162 (concluding that courts have inherent authority to expunge where the harm to an individual's right of privacy or the dangers of unwarranted adverse consequences outweigh the public interest in retaining the records in police files).
Furthermore, Chesley contends that § 46-18-204, MCA, offers sealing records as a minimum protection. From the fact that this statute does not explicitly prohibit expungement, he asserts that the legislature did not specifically preclude expungement. Relying upon Eagle Watch Investments, Inc. v. Smith (1996), 278 Mont. 187, 192, 924 P.2d 257, 260, Chesley asserts that Montana courts have jurisdiction in equity to expunge records absent statutory or legal remedies. Because the statute is silent as to expungement of criminal records and sealing his record is not sufficient, Chesley makes the argument that the District Court has jurisdiction in equity to expunge his record.
Conversely, the State maintains that the District Court correctly interpreted and applied the law to Chesley's motion. As a preliminary matter, the State points out that § 4618-204, MCA, cannot apply to Chesley's case because the statute limits sealing records for defendants who have a deferred sentence and have successfully completed the period of deferral without revocation. Chesley has not done so, and consequently his record could not be classified as confidential criminal justice information, much less expunged.
Moreover, the State contends that this Court has always regarded expunction of criminal records as a matter of legislative prerogative and may only be granted or withdrawn by the legislature. See State v. Brander (1996), 280 Mont. 148, 930 P.2d 31; State v. Lorash (1989), 238 Mont. 345, 777 P.2d 884. The State rebuts Chesley's claim that other jurisdictions determined that they have inherent power to expunge an arrest record by illustrating that each case cited provides little support for the assertion of a non-statutory, unfettered and inherent power for Montana courts to order expungement of criminal records. Finally, it disputes Chesley's claim of jurisdiction in equity by asserting that Chesley has failed to establish any right for which he is entitled to a remedy. Specifically, the State points out that Chesley's conviction remains valid and is properly included in his criminal records, and he fails to establish that his constitutional right to privacy is implicated by such retention. We agree.
It is well settled that Montana courts have jurisdiction to expunge criminal records pursuant to statute. See State v. Weldele , 2003 MT 117, 24, 315 Mont. 452, 24, 69 P.3d 1162, 24 (automatic expungement of DUI conviction pursuant to § 61-8-714(5), MCA (1989), did not apply to Weldele's DUI convictions because he received two DUIs within a five year period); Smith v. County of Missoula , 1999 MT 330, 20-21, 297 Mont. 368, 20-21, 992 P.2d 834 , 20-21 (order pursuant to § 46-18-204, MCA (1999), did not expunge criminal record but sealed it allowing dissemination of confidential criminal justice information to criminal justice a
Page 1 2 3 Montana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|