Expungement Laws by State: How to Clear Your Record (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 20, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 20, 2026. · 21 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Expungement in the United States: What It Is, Who Qualifies, and How It Works
Expungement is a court process that clears or seals a criminal record so it no longer appears in most background checks. Record relief is governed almost entirely by state law, and nearly every state uses a different term and different rules. Federal expungement exists only in narrow circumstances under 18 U.S.C. § 3607(c).
Information last verified on May 29, 2026. This article has not yet been reviewed by a licensed attorney.
Jurisdiction scope: This article addresses criminal record relief under United States federal law and the general framework across all 50 states and the District of Columbia, as of May 29, 2026. It explains the national framework and the terminology that varies by state; it does not provide the full eligibility rules for any single state. For offense-specific detail, see DUI expungement by state and how long a felony stays on your record.
If you are trying to clear a record, start by confirming whether criminal records are public in your state, then identify which form of relief your state offers.
Expungement Laws by State: Quick Comparison
Record relief is governed by state law, and the terminology and rules vary widely. The table below summarizes what each state calls the process, the primary governing statute, and whether the state offers automatic clearing without a petition. Select a state for its full eligibility rules, waiting periods, and process.
| State | What It Is Called | Primary Statute | Automatic Clearing? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Expungement | Ala. Code § 15-27-1 | No |
| Alaska | Set-aside (no expungement) | AS 12.55.085; AS 12.62.180 | No |
| Arizona | Set-aside, sealing, MJ expungement | A.R.S. § 13-911 | No |
| Arkansas | Sealing | A.C.A. § 16-90-1401 | Pardons only |
| California | Dismissal / conviction relief | Penal Code §§ 1203.4, 1203.425 | Yes (2024) |
| Colorado | Sealing | C.R.S. § 24-72-701 | Yes (2022) |
| Connecticut | Erasure / absolute pardon | Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 54-142a, 54-142u | Yes |
| Delaware | Expungement | 11 Del. C. §§ 4373, 4373A | Yes (2024) |
| Florida | Expunge / seal | Fla. Stat. §§ 943.0585, 943.059 | Partial |
| Georgia | Record restriction | O.C.G.A. § 35-3-37 | Partial |
| Hawaii | Expungement | Haw. Rev. Stat. § 831-3.2 | Partial (2026) |
| Idaho | Set-aside (no expungement) | Idaho Code § 19-2604 | No |
| Illinois | Expungement / sealing | 20 ILCS 2630/5.2 | Coming (2029) |
| Indiana | Expungement (Second Chance) | Ind. Code § 35-38-9 | No |
| Iowa | Expungement | Iowa Code § 901C.2 | No |
| Kansas | Expungement | K.S.A. 21-6614 | No |
| Kentucky | Expungement | KRS 431.073, 431.078 | Partial |
| Louisiana | Expungement | C.Cr.P. arts. 976-978 | Automated, by request (2025) |
| Maine | Sealing (no expungement) | 15 M.R.S. § 2261 | No |
| Maryland | Expungement / shielding | Crim. Proc. §§ 10-105, 10-110 | Partial |
| Massachusetts | Sealing / expungement | M.G.L. c. 276, §§ 100A, 100E | Partial |
| Michigan | Set-aside | MCL 780.621, 780.621g | Yes (2023) |
| Minnesota | Expungement | Minn. Stat. §§ 609A.02, 609A.015 | Yes (2025) |
| Mississippi | Expunction | Miss. Code § 99-19-71 | No |
| Missouri | Expungement | Mo. Rev. Stat. § 610.140 | No |
| Montana | Expungement (misdemeanor only) | Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-1101 | No |
| Nebraska | Set-aside / sealing | Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-2264, 29-3523 | Partial |
| Nevada | Sealing | NRS 179.245 | Partial |
| New Hampshire | Annulment | RSA 651:5 | Partial |
| New Jersey | Expungement | N.J.S.A. 2C:52 | Yes |
| New Mexico | Expungement | NMSA § 29-3A-1 | Partial |
| New York | Sealing | CPL §§ 160.59, 160.57 | Yes (2024) |
| North Carolina | Expunction | G.S. §§ 15A-145.5, 15A-146 | Partial |
| North Dakota | Sealing | N.D.C.C. ch. 12-60.1 | No |
| Ohio | Sealing / expungement | ORC § 2953.32 | No |
| Oklahoma | Expungement | 22 O.S. § 18 | Coming (2027) |
| Oregon | Set-aside | ORS 137.225 | No |
| Pennsylvania | Expungement / sealing | 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 9122, 9122.2 | Yes (2018) |
| Rhode Island | Expungement | R.I. Gen. Laws § 12-1.3-1 | Partial |
| South Carolina | Expungement | S.C. Code § 17-22-910 | Partial |
| South Dakota | Expungement (arrests) / SIS | SDCL §§ 23A-3-27, 23A-27-13 | No |
| Tennessee | Expungement | T.C.A. § 40-32-101 | Partial |
| Texas | Expunction / nondisclosure | C.Cr.P. ch. 55A; Gov. Code ch. 411 | Partial |
| Utah | Expungement | Utah Code § 77-40a | Yes (2022) |
| Vermont | Sealing / expungement | 13 V.S.A. § 7602 | Partial |
| Virginia | Expungement / sealing | Va. Code §§ 19.2-392.2, 19.2-392.6 | Yes (2026) |
| Washington | Vacating | RCW 9.94A.640, 9.96.060 | No |
| West Virginia | Expungement | W. Va. Code § 61-11-26 | No |
| Wisconsin | Expungement | Wis. Stat. § 973.015 | No |
| Wyoming | Expungement | Wyo. Stat. § 7-13-1501 | No |
| District of Columbia | Sealing / expungement | D.C. Code § 16-801 | Yes (operative Jan 1, 2026) |
What Expungement Is, and What It Is Not
Expungement is a judicial order that destroys or seals a criminal record so that, for most legal purposes, the conviction or arrest is treated as though it did not occur. It is not the same as a pardon. The Supreme Court recognized in Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915), that a pardon carries an imputation of guilt and does not erase the underlying record. States use at least five distinct legal mechanisms for clearing records: true expungement, sealing, set-aside or vacatur, certificate of relief, and pardon. The same practical relief carries different labels by jurisdiction. Michigan calls the process a "set-aside" under Mich. Comp. Laws § 780.621. California uses "dismissal" and "conviction relief" under Penal Code §§ 1203.4 and 1203.425. The California Courts self-help portal states plainly that "although true expungement does not exist in California, there may be options to clean your record." New York and Pennsylvania use "sealing."
These five mechanisms differ in what actually happens to the record and who can still see it:
- Expungement destroys the record or orders its return to the petitioner, so it is treated as if it never existed for most purposes.
- Sealing keeps the record in existence but removes it from public access; law enforcement, courts, and certain licensing agencies can still view it.
- Set-aside or vacatur vacates the conviction by court order, though the record of the arrest and proceedings usually still exists.
- Certificate of relief or rehabilitation is a judicial or executive certificate that reduces collateral consequences without erasing the record.
- Pardon is an executive act of forgiveness that does not erase the record or, by itself, restore every civil right.
Because the labels carry different legal effects, the term a state uses controls the answer to practical questions, including how to respond when an employer asks whether you have ever been convicted of a crime.
Is There a Federal Expungement Law?
There is no general federal expungement statute. The Department of Justice Office of the Pardon Attorney states that "expungement is a judicial remedy that is rarely granted by the court and cannot be granted within the Department of Justice or by the President." Only two narrow statutory exceptions exist at the federal level. First, 18 U.S.C. § 3607(c) requires a federal court to enter an expungement order for a qualifying first-offense simple drug possession by a person who was under 21 at the time of the offense; the statute directs that "the court shall enter an expungement order upon the application of such person." Second, 21 U.S.C. § 844a, which governs civil penalties for simple possession, provides that a person who completes that process "shall not be held thereafter under any provision of law to be guilty of perjury" for failing to acknowledge the proceeding.
Outside those provisions, federal courts have very limited power to expunge. Multiple federal circuits have relied on the ancillary-jurisdiction analysis in Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994), to reject the argument that a federal court may expunge a record purely on equitable or policy grounds, reasoning that the authority must be grounded in a statute. Broader federal legislation has been introduced repeatedly, most recently as the Clean Slate Act bills in the 119th Congress (2025), but no version had been enacted as of May 2026.
A federal pardon does not fill this gap. A 2006 Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel opinion concluded that "a pardon does not by its own force expunge judicial or administrative records of the conviction." Older federal youth-offender expungement practice, described in the DOJ Justice Manual at Criminal Resource Manual § 1869, rested on the Federal Youth Corrections Act, which Congress repealed in 1984 and which is therefore historical background rather than current law.
Expungement vs. Sealing vs. Set-Aside: Why the Terminology Matters
The label a state uses for record relief determines both the legal effect and who can see the record afterward. True expungement, as Texas describes it for an expunction under Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 55A, physically destroys the records or orders their return. Sealing, by contrast, makes the record inaccessible to the public and most employers while leaving it visible to law enforcement, courts, and certain licensing boards. Texas draws this line directly: its expunction process destroys the record, while an order of nondisclosure under Government Code Chapter 411, Subchapter E-1, only seals the offense from public view, and several agencies, including law enforcement, retain access. Michigan uses "set-aside" under Mich. Comp. Laws § 780.621, which vacates the conviction but does not destroy the underlying record. California uses "dismissal" and "conviction relief" under Penal Code §§ 1203.4 and 1203.425, and the state does not use the word "expungement" in its statutes.
This terminology discipline has real consequences. When a job or housing application asks whether you have been "convicted" of a crime, the correct answer depends on the exact form of relief your state granted, not on the colloquial word "expunged." A sealed record still exists and remains visible to some government agencies; a set-aside vacates the conviction but leaves a record of the proceedings; a true expunction may allow you to answer that no such record exists. Texas is a useful illustration because it offers both expunction and nondisclosure with different eligibility rules, so two people in the same state can end up with very different rights depending on which remedy they received.
Watch out: Do not assume "expunged" means the same thing nationwide. Read the specific statute your relief was granted under, and consult an attorney licensed in your state before answering questions about your record on an application.
The Clean Slate Wave: States with Automatic Record Clearing
Since 2018, a growing group of states has enacted automatic record-clearing laws that seal or set aside eligible records without requiring the individual to file a petition. Pennsylvania led with its Clean Slate Act (18 Pa.C.S. § 9122.2; Act 56 of 2018, effective June 28, 2018), the first automatic-sealing law in the nation. Michigan followed with a package of Clean Slate bills (Mich. Comp. Laws § 780.621g; Public Acts 187 and 193 of 2020, enacted effective April 11, 2021) that added automatic set-aside on top of its existing petition process; the statute delays automatic operation until two years after that effective date, so automatic set-aside did not begin operating until around April 2023. New Jersey enacted automatic clean-slate relief under P.L. 2019, c. 269 (N.J.S.A. 2C:52, effective October 1, 2020) and directed the state to build an automated clearing system. Colorado created automatic sealing under SB 22-099 (C.R.S. §§ 24-72-701 et seq., effective August 10, 2022). Minnesota expanded automatic expungement under Minn. Stat. § 609A.015 (Laws 2023, ch. 52). New York enacted automatic sealing under N.Y. Criminal Procedure Law § 160.57 (Laws 2023, ch. 820, effective November 16, 2024) and made any waiver of sealing rights void and unenforceable. Connecticut enacted automatic erasure under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-142a(e) (Public Act 21-32, effective January 1, 2023); a related provision, § 54-142u, separately erases cannabis-possession convictions only. California's automatic conviction-relief process under Penal Code § 1203.425 took effect October 1, 2024. Virginia Code § 19.2-392.6, as substantially rewritten by 2025 Va. Acts ch. 634 and 671 (SB1466/HB2723), took effect July 1, 2026 and requires automatic sealing of eligible misdemeanor convictions once seven years have passed since the date of conviction; a further technical amendment to the statute's cross-references takes effect July 1, 2027.
| State | Statute | Mechanism (state's term) | Effective | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pennsylvania | 18 Pa.C.S. § 9122.2 | Automatic sealing | June 28, 2018 | First automatic-sealing law in the nation |
| New Jersey | N.J.S.A. 2C:52 (P.L. 2019, c. 269) | Clean-slate relief | Oct 1, 2020 | Directed an automated clearing system |
| Michigan | Mich. Comp. Laws § 780.621g | Automatic set-aside | 2023 (2-yr delay from Apr 11, 2021 enactment) | Set-aside, not expungement |
| Connecticut | Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-142a(e) | Automatic erasure | January 1, 2023 | § 54-142u separately covers cannabis records only |
| Colorado | C.R.S. §§ 24-72-701 et seq. | Automatic sealing | Aug 10, 2022 | Sealing, not expungement |
| Minnesota | Minn. Stat. § 609A.015 | Automatic expungement | 2023 | Expanded low-level eligibility |
| California | Cal. Penal Code § 1203.425 | Automatic conviction relief | Oct 1, 2024 | "Relief"/"dismissal," not expungement |
| New York | N.Y. CPL § 160.57 | Automatic sealing | Nov 16, 2024 | Waiver of sealing is void |
| Virginia | Va. Code § 19.2-392.6 | Automatic sealing | July 1, 2026 | 2025 Va. Acts ch. 634/671 (SB1466/HB2723); VSP must transmit the first eligibility list by Oct. 1, 2026 |
Utah has operated automatic Clean Slate expungement under Utah Code ch. 77-40a, Part 2, since February 10, 2022, clearing eligible misdemeanor and infraction records without a petition. The courts paused automated batch processing from October 1, 2024 through January 1, 2026 for a system upgrade, during which affected individuals had to submit a form to receive the expungement; automated batch processing resumed January 1, 2026.
Who Is Eligible: General Patterns, Waiting Periods, and Offense Exclusions
Eligibility for expungement or sealing varies widely by state, but most states share a common framework: a required waiting period after conviction or completion of the sentence, a clean record during that waiting period, and a list of offenses that are categorically excluded. Waiting periods range from immediately after a dismissed charge to ten years or more for felonies. The most common categorical exclusions across states include violent felonies, sex offenses that require registration, crimes against children, homicide, and offenses that carry a possible life sentence. DUI and drug offenses fall in the middle: some states allow relief for a first DUI or simple possession after a waiting period, while others exclude them.
Arrests and dismissed charges are generally the easiest records to clear, because no conviction resulted. Misdemeanor convictions usually carry shorter waiting periods than felonies. Felony relief presents the highest bar; many states allow sealing or set-aside of lower-level, nonviolent felonies after an extended waiting period while prohibiting relief for serious or violent felonies. The number of prior convictions also matters: many states limit relief to people with a small number of convictions, and some count any new conviction during the waiting period as a reset.
Because the offense lists and waiting periods are state-specific, use the framework here as orientation only. For two of the most common scenarios, see the dedicated pages on DUI expungement by state and how long a felony stays on your record. Confirm the exact rule that applies to your conviction with an attorney licensed in your state.
Why Expungement Matters: Collateral Consequences and the Limits of Relief
A criminal record creates collateral consequences far beyond the sentence itself. The National Inventory of Collateral Consequences of Conviction, a database funded by the Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Assistance, catalogs more than 40,000 such consequences across federal and state law, covering employment, housing, professional licensing, public benefits, and education. The scale of the affected population is large: the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported in its Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems 2020 that roughly 114.4 million persons appear in state criminal-history repositories, a figure that includes arrest records and not convictions alone.
Record relief restores important opportunities, but it has real limits. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's 2012 Enforcement Guidance on the use of arrest and conviction records explains that "the fact of an arrest does not establish that criminal conduct has occurred," which is part of the policy rationale for clearing arrest records that never led to conviction. Yet even after a court clears a record, private background-check companies may continue to report sealed or expunged records if they obtained the data before the order, a gap the EEOC guidance specifically flags.
The federal layer adds another limit. The FBI removes federal arrest data from its Criminal File only "at the request of the submitting agency or upon the FBI's receipt of a federal court order which specifically states expungement." For state records held through the FBI's Interstate Identification Index, updates such as expungements "are maintained solely at the State level," so the state repository, not the FBI, must transmit the change. A state court order, standing alone, does not guarantee that every database reflects it. For more on what employers and others can see, see background check laws by state.
How the Process Generally Works, and How to Verify
Most states use one of two pathways. Under a petition-based system, the individual must confirm eligibility, obtain certified copies of the relevant court records, file a petition in the correct court with any required fee, serve notice on the prosecuting agency, wait out any objection period, attend a hearing if the prosecutor objects, and obtain the court's order. After the order issues, the petitioner usually must send certified copies to the state criminal-history repository, local law enforcement, and any relevant licensing agencies, because the order does not automatically flow through every database. Under an automatic system, such as those now operating in Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Jersey, Minnesota, and New York, the state identifies and clears eligible records without a filing, although individuals should still confirm that their records were actually updated.
Timelines vary. Routine petition cases commonly take three to six months from filing to a signed order, while contested cases or courts with large backlogs can take a year or more. Costs vary as well: court filing fees commonly run from roughly $50 to several hundred dollars depending on the state and county, attorney fees add more for contested matters, and many states offer fee waivers for low-income petitioners or free help through legal-aid organizations. Automatic clearing carries no filing fee because no petition is required.
Verification is the step people most often skip. Whether your relief came through a petition or an automatic process, confirm that the court, the state repository, and commercial background-check databases all reflect it. For a practical walkthrough, see how to check if your record has been expunged.
Next Steps
Expungement, sealing, and set-aside can reopen access to jobs, housing, and licenses, but the rules turn entirely on your state and the specific offense. Identify which form of relief your state offers, confirm your eligibility and waiting period, and verify the outcome across every system that holds your record. For offense-specific and verification guidance, the linked pages above cover DUI relief, felony record timelines, and how to confirm your record is clear.
This article provides general legal information about expungement, record sealing, set-aside, and related forms of criminal record relief under United States federal law and the laws of all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The information reflects statutes and sources as of May 29, 2026, and is provided for educational purposes only. Laws change frequently, and eligibility rules, waiting periods, and excluded offenses vary significantly from state to state. This article does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. If you are considering seeking expungement or any other form of record relief, you should consult a licensed attorney in the state where your conviction or arrest occurred. RecordingLaw.com is not a law firm and does not provide legal representation.
Sources
This article relies on primary statutes, federal case law, and government agency guidance. Full citations with links appear below.
Related Articles
- How long a felony stays on your record
- DUI expungement by state
- How to check if your record has been expunged
- Background check laws by state
- Whether criminal records are public
Last updated: May 29, 2026. Statutes cited reflect their in-force version as of May 29, 2026.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does 'expunged' mean?
When a record is expunged, a court orders it sealed, destroyed, or treated as though it never existed for most legal purposes. The exact effect depends on state law: some states physically destroy records, while others seal them so they are hidden from the public but visible to law enforcement. The word is not used everywhere; California uses 'dismissed,' Michigan uses 'set-aside,' and Colorado and New York use 'sealed.'
Can a felony be expunged?
It depends on the state and the specific felony. Many states allow sealing or set-aside of lower-level, nonviolent felonies after a waiting period, while excluding violent felonies, sex offenses requiring registration, crimes against children, and homicide. Michigan, for example, expanded felony set-aside eligibility under its 2020 Clean Slate legislation (Mich. Comp. Laws § 780.621).
Can a misdemeanor be expunged?
Misdemeanor relief is available in most states, usually with shorter waiting periods than felonies. Several states with automatic Clean Slate laws, including Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Jersey, Minnesota, and New York, now seal eligible misdemeanor convictions automatically after a waiting period, without requiring a petition.
Can a DUI be expunged?
DUI eligibility depends entirely on state law. Some states allow expungement or dismissal of a first-offense DUI after a waiting period and completion of the sentence, while others exclude DUI from relief. For a state-by-state breakdown, see our page on DUI expungement by state.
What crimes can be expunged?
Eligible offenses generally include first-offense, nonviolent misdemeanors and, in many states, lower-level nonviolent felonies after a waiting period. Commonly excluded categories include violent felonies, sex offenses requiring registration, crimes against children, homicide, and offenses carrying a possible life sentence. Arrests and dismissed charges are typically easier to clear than convictions.
How long does expungement take?
Under petition-based systems, routine cases commonly take three to six months from filing to a signed order, though contested cases or backlogged courts can take a year or more. Under automatic sealing laws in states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New York, the state clears eligible records without a filing, but the timing depends on when the state runs its processes.
Do expunged records show up on fingerprinting or FBI background checks?
They can, depending on whether the FBI's records were updated. The FBI removes federal arrest data only when the submitting agency requests it or it receives a court order that specifically states expungement. A state court order alone does not automatically clear FBI records, because state-level updates through the Interstate Identification Index are maintained by the state repository. Confirm your record was cleared everywhere using our guide on how to check if your record has been expunged.
What is the difference between expungement and sealing?
Expungement typically means the record is destroyed or returned and treated as if it never existed. Sealing means the record still exists but is hidden from the public and most employers, while remaining visible to law enforcement, courts, and certain licensing agencies. Texas makes this explicit, offering both expunction (Code of Criminal Procedure Ch. 55A) and nondisclosure or sealing (Government Code Ch. 411, Subchapter E-1).
How much does expungement cost?
Costs vary by state and county. Court filing fees commonly range from roughly $50 to several hundred dollars, and attorney fees add more for contested cases. Many states offer fee waivers for low-income petitioners, and legal-aid organizations sometimes handle expungement cases at no charge. Automatic clearing carries no filing fee because no petition is required.
Is there a federal expungement law?
There is no general federal expungement law. The only federal statutory provisions are narrow: 18 U.S.C. § 3607(c) for certain first-offense simple drug possession by people under 21, and 21 U.S.C. § 844a for civil-penalty simple possession. The Department of Justice Office of the Pardon Attorney confirms that expungement cannot be granted by the President or the Department of Justice outside those limits.
Does a presidential pardon expunge a federal record?
No. The Supreme Court held in Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915), that a pardon implies guilt and does not erase the underlying record. A 2006 Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel opinion confirmed that a pardon does not, by its own force, expunge judicial or administrative records of the conviction. A pardon and an expungement are distinct remedies.
Updates
Corrected the Virginia entry, which had wrongly described the state's automatic sealing law as already operating for years when it actually took effect July 1, 2026; corrected Utah's automatic-clearing history (running since 2022, paused October 2024-January 2026, resumed January 1, 2026, not something that only began in 2026); and clarified that Louisiana's automated expungement process requires an affirmative online request rather than clearing records with no action.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected Connecticut's automatic-erasure effective date: Public Act 21-32's Subsec. (e) (Conn. Gen. Stat. 54-142a) took effect January 1, 2023, not July 1, 2021, per the statute's own codified history note.
Fixed Connecticut's automatic-erasure effective date in the state-comparison table (was July 1, 2021, contradicting the correct January 1, 2023 date already stated in the prose above).
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the Clean Slate comparison table and narrative: Connecticut's general automatic-erasure framework is now anchored to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-142a(e) instead of the cannabis-only § 54-142u; Michigan's automatic set-aside is dated to when it actually began operating (around 2023) rather than the 2021 effective date of the underlying acts; and Virginia's automatic sealing under § 19.2-392.6 is now described as already in force rather than a future 2026 start date.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
State-by-state comparison
Each state guide below is paired with the governing statute our editors adjudicated for it, held in our own legal record and verified against the official source.
Each statute shown is the same adjudicated anchor its state guide renders, independently verified against primary sources. A dash means not yet adjudicated in our record — never that no law exists.
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Code of Alabama 1975, Title 15: Criminal Procedure.
§ 15-27-1Petition to Expunge Records - Misdemeanor Offense, Violation, Traffic Violation, or Municipal Ordinance Violation.In forcecited in 4 of our articles
(a) A person who has been charged with a misdemeanor offense, violation, traffic violation, or municipal ordinance violation may file a petition in the criminal division of the circuit court in the county in which the charges were filed, to expunge records relating to the charge in any of the following circumstances: (1) When the charge has been dismissed with prejudice and more than 90 days have passed. (2) When the charge has been no billed by a grand jury and more than 90 days have passed. (3) When the person has been found not guilty of the charge and more than 90 days have passed. (4) When the charge has been nolle prossed without conditions, more than 90 days have passed, and the charge or charges have not been refiled. (5) When the indictment has been quashed and the statute of limitations for refiling the charge or charges has expired or the prosecuting agency confirms that the charge or charges will not be refiled. (6)a. When the charge was dismissed after successful completion of a drug court program, mental health court program, diversion program, veteran’s court program, or any other court-approved deferred prosecution program. b.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-01 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at alison.legislature.state.al.us
Also relied on in: Alabama Background Check Laws (2026 Guide), Alabama Expungement Laws: Eligibility, Process, and the 2021 REDEEMER Act, Alabama DUI Laws: Penalties, BAC Limit & License (2026)
California Penal Code
§ 1203.425In forcecited in 4 of our articles
(a) (1) (A) Commencing October 1, 2024, and subject to an appropriation in the annual Budget Act, on a monthly basis, the Department of Justice shall review the records in the statewide criminal justice databases, and based on information in the state summary criminal history repository and the Supervised Release File, shall identify persons with convictions that meet the criteria set forth in subparagraph (B) and are eligible for automatic conviction record relief. (B) A person is eligible for automatic conviction relief pursuant to this section if they meet all of the following conditions: (i) The person is not required to register pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act. (ii) The person does not have an active record for local, state, or federal supervision in the Supervised Release File. (iii) Based upon the information available in the department’s record, including disposition dates and sentencing terms, it does not appear that the person is currently serving a sentence for an offense and there is no indication of pending criminal charges.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Also relied on in: California Expungement Laws: Dismissal and Record Relief, How Long Does a Felony Stay on Your Record? (2026), California Court Records: Why There's No Statewide Portal, and How Each County Search Works
Connecticut General Statutes, Title 54 (Criminal Procedure), Chapter 961a
§ 54-142a(Formerly Sec. 54-90). Erasure of criminal records.In forcecited in 3 of our articles
(a) Whenever in any criminal case, on or after October 1, 1969, the accused, by a final judgment, is found not guilty of the charge or the charge is dismissed, all police and court records and records of any state's attorney pertaining to such charge shall be erased upon the expiration of the time to file a writ of error or take an appeal, if an appeal is not taken, or upon final determination of the appeal sustaining a finding of not guilty or a dismissal, if an appeal is taken. Nothing in this subsection shall require the erasure of any record pertaining to a charge for which the defendant was found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect or guilty but not criminally responsible by reason of mental disease or defect.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-02 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at cga.ct.gov
Cited in 102 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Connecticut courts read section 54-142a narrowly. Doe v. Manson (1981) held erasure means sealing, though a pardoned person may request physical destruction of court records, and that the correction commissioner's prison records are not court records. State v. Morowitz (1986) held it does not bar testimony from personal knowledge.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Doe v. Manson (Supreme Court of Connecticut 1981, 183 Conn. 183)✓A pardoned man sued to make the corrections commissioner destroy all records of his imprisonment; the court held section 54-142a reaches only records created or kept by or for a court, so court documents were destroyed but internal prison files were not.
- Rado v. Board of Education of the Borough of Naugatuck (Supreme Court of Connecticut 1990, 216 Conn. 541)✓A tenured teacher acquitted of eavesdropping on school telephone lines was fired on testimony from the state's investigator and telephone company workers; the court held section 54-142a does not obliterate memory or bar testimony not shown to be derived from erased records.
- State v. Morowitz (Supreme Court of Connecticut 1986, 200 Conn. 440)✓A podiatrist convicted of assaulting sedated patients argued an earlier victim could not testify because those prior charges had been dismissed and erased; the court held section 54-142a covers records only and cannot insulate a person from the consequences of his prior actions.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Connecticut Expungement Laws: Erasure, Clean Slate, and Absolute Pardon, Connecticut Court Records: How to Use Case Look-up, and the Real Clean Slate Status
§ 54-142uAutomatic erasure of record of person for certain cannabis possession convictions.In force
(a) Whenever on or after January 1, 2000, but prior to October 1, 2015, any person has been convicted in any court of this state of possession under subsection (c) of section 21a-279, all police and court records and records of the state's or prosecuting attorney pertaining to such a conviction in any court of this state shall be, pursuant to the provisions of section 54-142a, (1) erased, if such records are electronic records; or (2) deemed erased by operation of law, if such records are not electronic records. (b) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any police or court records or the records of any state's attorney or prosecuting attorney with respect to any record referencing more than one count unless and until all counts are entitled to erasure in accordance with the provisions of this section, except that electronic records or portions of electronic records released to the public that reference a charge that would otherwise be entitled to erasure under this section shall be erased in accordance with the provisions of this section.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at cga.ct.gov
Official Code of Georgia Annotated
§ 35-3-37Review of individual's criminal history record information; definitions; privacy considerations; written application requesting review; inspection.In forcecited in 4 of our articles
(a) As used in this Code section, the term: (1) "Drug court treatment program" means a treatment program operated by a drug court division in accordance with the provisions of Code Section 15-1-15. (2) "Entity" means the arresting law enforcement agency, including county and municipal jails and de
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-01 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legis.ga.gov
Cited in 31 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Georgia courts have applied OCGA 35-3-37 to criminal record restriction. Mosley v. Lowe (2016) held the 2013 amendments reach arrests predating their July 1, 2013 effective date because only a public access right was affected. John Doe v. State (2018) applied subsection (m)'s privacy balancing and reversed a denial of sealing.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Seals v. State (Supreme Court of Georgia 2021, 311 Ga. 739)✓Seals appealed his conviction while a mistried rape count sat on the dead docket; the court read OCGA 35-3-37 (j) (3), which allows record restriction of a dead-docketed charge only after 12 months and a hearing, as showing dead-docketing is not necessarily a final disposition.
- John Doe v. State (Court of Appeals of Georgia 2018, 347 Ga. App. 246)✓Doe's 2003 marijuana charge ended in first offender discharge, and he petitioned under OCGA 35-3-37 (m) to seal the clerk's file; the court held the trial court abused its discretion by reciting the statutory balancing test without applying it, and directed it be granted.
- Mosley v. Lowe (Supreme Court of Georgia 2016, 298 Ga. 363)✓A 1996 simple assault charge against Lowe was nolle prossed, and she sought record restriction in 2014; the court held the 2013 amendments to OCGA 35-3-37 reach arrests predating July 1, 2013 and pose no retroactivity problem, so her restriction request should have been granted.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Georgia Background Check Laws (2026 Guide), Georgia DUI Laws: Penalties, BAC Limit & License (2026), Georgia Expungement Laws: Record Restriction Guide (2026)
Kansas Statutes Annotated, Chapter 21: CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
§ 21-6614Expungement of certain convictions, arrest records and diversion agreements; procedure; restoration of person's right to keep and bear arms.In forcecited in 5 of our articles
(a) (1) Except as provided in subsections (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f), any person convicted in this state of a traffic infraction, cigarette or tobacco infraction, misdemeanor or a class D or E felony, or for crimes committed on or after July 1, 1993, any nongrid felony or felony ranked in severity levels 6 through 10 of the nondrug grid, or for crimes committed on or after July 1, 1993, but prior to July 1, 2012, any felony ranked in severity level 4 of the drug grid, or for crimes committed on or after July 1, 2012, any felony ranked in severity level 5 of the drug grid may petition the convicting court for the expungement of such conviction or related arrest records if three or more years have elapsed since the person: (A) Satisfied the sentence imposed; or (B) was discharged from probation, a community correctional services program, parole, postrelease supervision, conditional release or a suspended sentence.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-01 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ksrevisor.gov
Cited in 6 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Neil (2015) found no language making 21-6614 retroactive, so a court must apply the expungement statute in force when the offense was committed, and remanded on that basis. State v. Wente (2026) read subsection (h) to make a petitioner with a pending felony case ineligible for expungement.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Hall (Court of Appeals of Kansas 2025, 564 P.3d 786)“…oned for such crime. The provisions of subsection (j)(2) of K.S.A. 21-6614, and amendments thereto, shall not appl…”
- State v. Wente (Court of Appeals of Kansas 2026)✓Wente argued his probation-revocation appeal was not moot because winning would let him seek expungement sooner; applying K.S.A. 21-6614's eligibility conditions, the court found a pending felony case made him ineligible anyway and dismissed the appeal.
- State v. Tallie (Court of Appeals of Kansas 2025)✓The State said Tallie's completed sentence made his probation appeal moot; because K.S.A. 21-6614 allows a petition three years after the sentence is satisfied, the court found a ruling on his extended probation could advance expungement, so the appeal was not moot.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Kansas Background Check Laws (2026 Guide), Kansas Expungement Laws: K.S.A. 21-6614 Eligibility, Waiting Periods, and Filing Steps, DUI Expungement by State: Where You Can Clear Your Record
Kentucky Revised Statutes, Chapter 431: GENERAL PROVISIONS CONCERNING CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
§ 431.073Certain felony convictions may be vacated and the records expunged -- Application -- Hearing -- Vacating conviction without a hearing -- Order to vacate and expunge -- Application form -- Fees -- Retroactivity. (Effective until April 30, 2027)In forcecited in 4 of our articles
(1) Any person who has been: (a) Convicted of a Class D felony violation of KRS 17.175, 186.990, 194A.505, 194B.505, 217.181, 217.207, 217.208, 218A.140, 218A.1415, 218A.1416, 218A.1417, 218A.1418, 218A.1423, 218A.1439, 218A.282, 218A.284, 218A.286, 218A.320, 218A.322, 218A.324, 218A.500, 244.165, 286.11-057, 304.47-025, 324.990, 365.241, 434.155, 434.675, 434.850, 434.872, 511.040, 512.020, 514.030, 514.040, 514.050, 514.060, 514.065, 514.070, 514.080, 514.090, 514.100, 514.110, 514.120, 514.140, 514.150, 514.160, 516.030, 516.060, 516.090, 516.108, 517.120, 518.040, 522.040, 524.100, 525.113, 526.020, 526.030, 528.020, 528.040, 528.050, 530.010, or 530.050; (b) Convicted of a series of Class D felony violations of one (1) or more statutes enumerated in paragraph (a) of this subsection arising from a single incident; (c) Granted a full pardon; or (d) Convicted of a Class D felony, or an offense prior to January 1, 1975 which was punishable by not more than five (5) years' incarceration, which was not a violation of KRS 189A.010, 508.032, or 519.055, abuse of public office, a sex offense, or an offense committed against a child, and did not result in serious bodily injury or…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-01 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at apps.legislature.ky.gov
Cited in 21 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Kentucky courts have applied KRS 431.073 strictly. Com. of Ky. v. Ford (2018) held four forged checks passed on four days at three places were not a single incident, so the convictions could not be expunged. Southerland v. Commonwealth (2018) held a court has no authority to expunge an offense the statute does not list.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Com. of Ky. v. Ford (Court of Appeals of Kentucky 2018, 543 S.W.3d 579)✓Ford cashed four forged checks on four days at three businesses over ten days, and the trial court expunged the convictions. The court held they did not arise from a "single incident" under KRS 431.073(1), so they were ineligible, and reversed.
- Southerland v. Commonwealth (Court of Appeals of Kentucky 2018, 565 S.W.3d 165)✓Southerland asked to expunge a 1994 drug trafficking conviction he conceded was not on the KRS 431.073(1) eligibility list, urging inherent judicial power instead. The court held the circuit court had no statutory authority, noting he had already had one felony expunged.
- G. M. W. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Court of Appeals of Kentucky 2026)✓After most charges from one 2013 incident were vacated under KRS 431.073, the petitioner used a civil rule to attack the misdemeanor left out. The court treated expungement as a statutory privilege and held no authority existed to reach an offense barred by KRS 431.078(4)(d).
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Kentucky Background Check Laws (2026 Guide), Kentucky Expungement Laws: KRS 431.073, 431.076, and 431.078 Explained, Kentucky Court Records: How to Search, What's Public, and How to Seal Them
Michigan Compiled Laws
§ 780.621Application for order setting aside conviction; felony or misdemeanor conviction; setting aside of certain convictions prohibited; victim of human trafficking violation; definitionsIn forcecited in 7 of our articles
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this act, a person who is convicted of 1 or more criminal offenses may file an application with the convicting court for the entry of an order setting aside 1 or more convictions as follows: (a) Except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c), a person convicted of 1 or more criminal offenses, but not more than a total of 3 felony offenses, in this state, may apply to have all of the applicant's convictions from this state set aside. (b) An applicant may not have more than a total of 2 convictions for an assaultive crime set aside under this act during the applicant's lifetime. (c) An applicant may not have more than 1 felony conviction for the same offense set aside under this section if the offense is punishable by more than 10 years imprisonment. (d) A person who is convicted of a violation or an attempted violation of section 520e of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.520e, before January 12, 2015 may petition the convicting court to set aside the conviction if the individual has not been convicted of another offense other than not more than 2 minor offenses.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-01 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 57 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):People v. Droog (2009) held the Vehicle Code bar on expunging reportable violations does not limit a court's authority to set aside a conviction under MCL 780.621. People v. Van Heck (2002) applied 780.621 eligibility to hold that a pardoned out-of-state conviction does not count against the applicant.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- People v. Droog (Michigan Court of Appeals 2009, 282 Mich. App. 68)✓A woman convicted of obtaining a controlled substance by fraud was refused a set aside because the Vehicle Code bars expunging violations reportable to the Secretary of State; the court held that bar does not limit MCL 780.621 and remanded for an order setting it aside.
- People v. Link (Michigan Court of Appeals 1997, 225 Mich. App. 211)✓A man convicted in 1989 of third degree criminal sexual conduct applied in 1994 to set that conviction aside; the court held the 1997 amendment excluding such convictions is remedial and applies retroactively, since setting aside a conviction is a privilege and not a right.
- People v. Van Heck (Michigan Court of Appeals 2002, 252 Mich. App. 207)✓A man with five absolutely pardoned Connecticut misdemeanors was told his 1979 Michigan felonious assault conviction could not be set aside because he had more than one offense; the court held the pardon left him innocent as a matter of law, so MCL 780.621(1) still covered him.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Michigan Background Check Laws (2026 Guide), Michigan Sexting Laws: Legal Consequences and Penalties, Michigan Expungement Laws: How Conviction Set-Aside Works Under MCL 780.621
§ 780.621gSetting aside certain convictions without application; requirements; exceptions; implementation date; reinstatement; "crime of dishonesty" definedIn forcecited in 5 of our articles
(1) Beginning 2 years after the effective date of the amendatory act that added this section and subject to any necessary appropriation, a misdemeanor conviction for an offense for which the maximum punishment is imprisonment for not more than 92 days is set aside under this section without the filing of an application under section 1 if 7 years have passed from the imposition of the sentence. Each court shall notify the arresting law enforcement agency of each conviction on or before the tenth day of each month that is set aside under this subsection for the preceding month. Each law enforcement agency need not retain and shall make nonpublic the notification that the conviction has been set aside, and the record of the arrest, fingerprinting, conviction, and sentence of the person in the case to which the notification applies.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- People of Michigan v. Christopher Shane Babcock (Michigan Court of Appeals 2025)“…ments. At a subsequent hearing, the prosecution argued that MCL 780.621g(12) and MCL 780.621h(3) provided that a…”
- People of Michigan v. Jeffrey Duane Tull (Michigan Court of Appeals 2024)“…ony conviction has since been automatically set aside under MCL 780.621g(2), this issue is now moot. Accordingly…”
- People of Michigan v. Monica Rannay Pulliam (Michigan Court of Appeals 2024)“…See MCL 780.621a(b); MCL 760.621c(d)(i) through (iii). 4 MCL 780.621g, effective April 11, 2021, governs the…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: How to Check if Your Record Has Been Expunged, Michigan Court Records: How to Search, What's Public, and How to Seal Them
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 609A: EXPUNGEMENT
§ 609A.015AUTOMATIC EXPUNGEMENT OF RECORDSIn forcecited in 4 of our articles
Subdivision 1. Eligibility; dismissal; exoneration. (a) A person who is the subject of a criminal record or delinquency record is eligible for a grant of expungement relief without the filing of a petition: (1) if the person was arrested and all charges were dismissed after a case was filed unless dismissal was based on a finding that the defendant was incompetent to proceed; (2) upon the dismissal and discharge of proceedings against a person under section 152.18, subdivision 1, for violation of section 152.024, 152.025, or 152.027 for possession of a controlled substance; or (3) if all pending actions or proceedings were resolved in favor of the person. (b) For purposes of this chapter, a verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness is not a resolution in favor of the person. For purposes of this chapter, an action or proceeding is resolved in favor of the person if the petitioner received an order under section 590.11 determining that the person is eligible for compensation based on exoneration. (c) The service requirements in section 609A.03, subdivision 8, do not apply to any expungements ordered under this subdivision.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-02 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mn.gov
Also relied on in: Minnesota Expungement Laws: Clean Slate Act and Petition Guide, Minnesota Court Records: How to Search, What's Public, and How to Seal Them
New York Criminal Procedure Law
§ 160.57Automatic sealing of convictionsIn forcecited in 5 of our articles
Automatic sealing of convictions. 1. Convictions for certain traffic infractions or a crime defined in the laws of this state shall be sealed in accordance with this section as follows: (a) Convictions for subdivision one of section eleven hundred ninety-two of the vehicle and traffic law shall be sealed after three years. (b) Criminal convictions shall be sealed upon satisfaction of the following conditions: (i) for a misdemeanor conviction, at least three years have passed from the defendant's release from incarceration or the imposition of sentence if there was no sentence of incarceration. If the defendant is subsequently convicted of a crime before a prior conviction is sealed pursuant to this section, the calculation of time for such prior conviction shall start upon the same date as the time calculation starts for the subsequent criminal conviction; (ii) for a felony conviction, at least eight years have passed from the date the defendant was last released from incarceration for the sentence of the conviction eligible for sealing or from the imposition of sentence if there was no sentence of incarceration.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-01 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislation.nysenate.gov
Also relied on in: New York Expungement Laws: Record Sealing and the Clean Slate Act, New York's Clean Slate Act Takes Effect: Millions of Old Convictions Now Seal Automatically, New York Court Records: How to Search eCourts, the $95 CHRS Fee, and Both Sealing Tracks
Ohio Revised Code
§ 2953.32Sealing or expungement of record of conviction record or bail forfeiture; exceptionsIn forcecited in 6 of our articles
(A)(1) Sections 2953.32 and 2953.34 of the Revised Code do not apply to any of the following: (a) Convictions under Chapter 4506., 4507., 4510., 4511., or 4549.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at codes.ohio.gov
Cited in 607 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Hamilton (1996) held that a prosecutor's participation in a sealing hearing is not limited to the issues stated in a written objection under R.C. 2953.32(B), and State v. LaSalle (2002) held that the statutory law in effect when a 2953.32 application is filed controls.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Hamilton (Ohio Supreme Court 1996, 75 Ohio St. 3d 636)✓A man convicted of theft applied to seal the record; the prosecutor filed no written objection but appeared at the hearing and cross-examined him. The court held R.C. 2953.32(B) does not limit a prosecutor's participation to issues raised in a written objection.
- State v. Pariag (Ohio Supreme Court 2013, 137 Ohio St. 3d 81)“…ied definition. Although the word “expungement” was used in R.C. 2953.32, Ohio’s first-time-offender statute, “e…”
- State v. LaSalle (Ohio Supreme Court 2002, 96 Ohio St. 3d 178)✓LaSalle applied to seal a domestic violence conviction; while it was pending, an amendment barred sealing such records and the trial court vacated its sealing order. The court held the statutory law in effect when an R.C. 2953.32 application is filed governs.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Ohio Expungement Laws: Sealing and Expungement Under ORC 2953.32, Ohio Phone Call Recording Laws: Rules, Penalties, and Compliance, Ohio OVI Laws: Penalties, BAC Limit & License (2026)
Utah Code, Title 77: Criminal Procedure
§ 77-40a-201General provisions for automatic expungement and deletion.In force
(1) Nothing in this section precludes an individual from filing a petition for expungement of records that are eligible for automatic expungement or deletion under this section if an automatic expungement or deletion has not occurred pursuant to this section. (2) An automatic expungement performed under this part does not preclude a person from requesting access to expunged records in accordance with Section 77-40a-403 or 77-40a-404. (3) (a) The Judicial Council and the Supreme Court shall make rules to govern the process for automatic expungement. (b) The rules under Subsection (3)(a) may authorize: (i) a presiding judge of a district court to issue an expungement order for any case when the requirements for automatic expungement are met; and (ii) a presiding judge of a justice court to issue an expungement order for any justice court case within the presiding judge's judicial district when the requirements for automatic expungement are met.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at le.utah.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Mullins v. USA (District Court, D. Utah 2023)“…r an order for vacatur under Utah Code Ann. § 78B-9-108(2). Utah Code Ann. § 77-40a-201(3)(b) gives state district and justice…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Code of Virginia, Title 19.2: Criminal Procedure
§ 19.2-392.6Automatic sealing of offenses resulting in convictionIn forcecited in 4 of our articles
A. (Effective until July 1, 2027) If a person was convicted of a violation of any of the following sections with an offense date on or after January 1, 1986, such conviction, including any records relating to such conviction, shall be ordered to be automatically sealed in the manner set forth in § 19.2-392.7, subject to the provisions of subsections B and C: a misdemeanor violation of § 18.2-96 or 18.2-103; § 18.2-119, 18.2-120, or 18.2-134; a misdemeanor violation of § 18.2-248.1; or § 18.2-415. A. (Effective July 1, 2027) If a person was convicted of a violation of any of the following sections with an offense date on or after January 1, 1986, such conviction, including any records relating to such conviction, shall be ordered to be automatically sealed in the manner set forth in § 19.2-392.7, subject to the provisions of subsections B and C: a misdemeanor violation of § 18.2-96 or 18.2-103; § 18.2-119, 18.2-120, or 18.2-134; a misdemeanor violation of former § 18.2-248.1; or § 18.2-415. B.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at law.lis.virginia.gov
Also relied on in: Virginia Expungement Laws: § 19.2-392.2 and Virginia's New Sealing Law, Virginia Clean Slate Record Sealing Takes Effect July 1, 2026: What Gets Sealed (2026), Virginia Background Check Laws: Employer, Housing, and Licensing Guide (2026)
Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 973: Sentencing
§ 973.015Special disposition.In forcecited in 4 of our articles
(1m) (a) 1. Subject to subd. 2. and except as provided in subd. 3., when a person is under the age of 25 at the time of the commission of an offense for which the person has been found guilty in a court for violation of a law for which the maximum period of imprisonment is 6 years or less, the court may order at the time of sentencing that the record be expunged upon successful completion of the sentence if the court determines the person will benefit and society will not be harmed by this disposition. This subsection does not apply to information maintained by the department of transportation regarding a conviction that is required to be included in a record kept under s. 343.23 (2) (a). 2. The court shall order at the time of sentencing that the record be expunged upon successful completion of the sentence if the offense was a violation of s. 942.08 (2) (b), (c), or (d) or (3), and the person was under the age of 18 when he or she committed it. 3. No court may order that a record of a conviction for any of the following be expunged: a.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-01 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at docs.legis.wisconsin.gov
Cited in 22 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Leitner (2002) held Wis. Stat. 973.015 reaches only court records, so prosecutors and police keep theirs and a sentencing court may weigh the facts behind an expunged conviction. State v. Andrew J. Matasek (2014) held that if a court is going to expunge, it must exercise that discretion at sentencing.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Leitner (Wisconsin Supreme Court 2002, 253 Wis. 2d 449)✓After a no contest plea to reckless driving causing great bodily harm, the prosecutor recited facts from police reports about prior convictions whose court records were expunged. The court held 973.015 reaches only court records, so a sentencing judge may weigh those facts.
- State v. Christopher Joseph Allen (Wisconsin Supreme Court 2017, 373 Wis. 2d 98)✓Allen killed a passenger while driving 97 mph intoxicated, and the judge weighed his earlier completion of supervision in a case expunged under 973.015. The court held such facts may be considered when drawn from sources other than expunged court records.
- State v. Andrew J. Matasek (Wisconsin Supreme Court 2014, 353 Wis. 2d 601)✓Matasek pleaded no contest to delivering THC and asked the judge to defer the expunction call until he finished his sentence. The court held the phrase "at the time of sentencing" in 973.015 requires that discretion to be exercised at the sentencing proceeding.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Wisconsin Background Check Laws (2026 Guide), Wisconsin Expungement Laws: Wis. Stat. § 973.015 Explained, Wisconsin Court Records: How to Search WCCA, What's Public, and How to Seal Them (2026)
West Virginia Code
§ 61-11-26Expungement of certain criminal convictions; procedures; effect.In forcecited in 6 of our articles
(a) Eligibility for expungement. — (1) Misdemeanors. — Subject to the limitations set forth in this section, a person convicted of a misdemeanor offense or offenses may, pursuant to the provisions of this section, petition the circuit court in which the conviction or convictions occurred for expungement of the conviction or convictions and the records associated with the conviction or convictions. (2) Nonviolent felonies. — Subject to the limitations set forth in this section, a person convicted of a nonviolent felony offense or offenses arising from the same transaction or series of transactions may, pursuant to the provisions of this section, petition the circuit court in which the conviction or convictions occurred for expungement of the conviction or convictions and the records associated with the conviction or convictions. (b) Temporal requirements. — (1) Misdemeanor. — A person is not eligible for expungement pursuant to subdivision (1), subsection (a) of this section until one year after conviction, completion of any sentence of incarceration or completion of any period of supervision, whichever is later in time. (2) More than one misdemeanor.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-01 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at code.wvlegislature.gov
Also relied on in: West Virginia Background Check Laws (2026 Guide), West Virginia Statute of Limitations: Filing Deadlines by Case Type, West Virginia Expungement Laws: W. Va. Code § 61-11-26 Explained
United States Code Title 18
§ 3607Special probation and expungement procedures for drug possessorsIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
If a person found guilty of an offense described in section 404 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 844)— has not, prior to the commission of such offense, been convicted of violating a Federal or State law relating to controlled substances; and has not previously been the subject of a disposition under this subsection; the court may, with the consent of such person, place him on probation for a term of not more than one year without entering a judgment of conviction. At any time before the expiration of the term of probation, if the person has not violated a condition of his probation, the court may, without entering a judgment of conviction, dismiss the proceedings against the person and discharge him from probation. At the expiration of the term of probation, if the person has not violated a condition of his probation, the court shall, without entering a judgment of conviction, dismiss the proceedings against the person and discharge him from probation. If the person violates a condition of his probation, the court shall proceed in accordance with the provisions of section 3565.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 164 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Hector Tito Lujan-Armendariz v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Mauro Roldan-Santoyo v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2000, 222 F.3d 728)“…iction of a crime, or for any other purpose.” 18 U.S.C. § 3607 (b) (emphasis added); Garberding…”
- Fernandez-Bernal v. Attorney General of the United States (Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 2001, 257 F.3d 1304)“…eligible for relief under the Federal First Offender Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3607 (“FFOA”), which instructs that a dispo…”
- Byron Paredes-Urrestarazu v. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 1994, 36 F.3d 801)“…S.C. § 844 (b)(1), and its successor provision codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3607 , has provided a mechanism very similar…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
United States Code Title 21
§ 844aCivil penalty for possession of small amounts of certain controlled substancesIn force
Any individual who knowingly possesses a controlled substance that is listed in section 841(b)(1)(A) of this title in violation of section 844 of this title in an amount that, as specified by regulation of the Attorney General, is a personal use amount shall be liable to the United States for a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $10,000 for each such violation. The income and net assets of an individual shall not be relevant to the determination whether to assess a civil penalty under this section or to prosecute the individual criminally. However, in determining the amount of a penalty under this section, the income and net assets of an individual shall be considered. A civil penalty may not be assessed under this section if the individual previously was convicted of a Federal or State offense relating to a controlled substance. A civil penalty may not be assessed on an individual under this section on more than two separate occasions. A civil penalty under this section may be assessed by the Attorney General only by an order made on the record after opportunity for a hearing in accordance with section 554 of title 5.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 25 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2022
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- United States v. Lucido (Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 2010, 612 F.3d 871)“…led Substances Act. See 18 U.S.C. § 3607 (c); see also 21 U.S.C. § 844a(j). Another authorizes the same to corr…”
- Atwater v. City of Lago Vista (Supreme Court of the United States 2001, 532 U.S. 318)“…0; subsequent offense punishable by 90 days' imprisonment); 21 U. S. C. §§ 844a(a), (c) (first offense for possession o…”
- Byron Paredes-Urrestarazu v. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 1994, 36 F.3d 801)“…equisite expression of congressional intent can be found in 21 U.S.C. § 844a. Section 844a provides for the impositio…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Explore the law
The laws cited above reference these related sections in their own text:
- Michigan Compiled Laws § 257.625 — Operating motor vehicle while intoxicated; "operating while intoxicated" defined; operating motor vehicle when visibly impaired; penalties for causing death or serious impairment of a body function; operation of motor vehicle by person less than 21 years of age; "any bodily alcohol content" defined; requirements; controlled substance; costs; enhanced sentence; guilty plea or nolo contendere; establishment of prior conviction; special verdict; public record; burden of proving religious service or ceremony; ignition interlock device; definitions; prior conviction; violations arising out of same transaction view in our statute record · read at the official source
- Michigan Compiled Laws § 750.136b — Definitions; child abuse; degrees; penalties; exception; affirmative defense; enhanced sentence; "prior conviction" defined view in our statute record · read at the official source
- Michigan Compiled Laws § 750.411h — Stalking; definitions; violation as misdemeanor; penalties; probation; conditions; evidence of continued conduct as rebuttable presumption; additional penalties view in our statute record · read at the official source
- Michigan Compiled Laws § 750.448 — Soliciting, accosting, or inviting to commit prostitution or immoral act; crime view in our statute record · read at the official source
- Michigan Compiled Laws § 750.520e — Criminal sexual conduct in the fourth degree; misdemeanor view in our statute record · read at the official source
Related law for further reading — not part of this article’s citations.
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- 18 U.S.C. § 3607 — federal first-offender drug expungement(law.cornell.edu)
- 21 U.S.C. § 844a — civil penalty for simple possession(law.cornell.edu)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994)(law.cornell.edu)
- Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915)(law.cornell.edu)
- U.S. DOJ, Office of the Pardon Attorney — Frequently Asked Questions(justice.gov).gov
- U.S. DOJ Office of Legal Counsel, Whether a Presidential Pardon Expunges Records (2006)(justice.gov).gov
- U.S. DOJ Justice Manual, Criminal Resource Manual § 1869(justice.gov).gov
- H.R. 3114, 119th Cong. (2025) — Clean Slate Act (proposed, not enacted)(congress.gov).gov
- 18 Pa.C.S. § 9122.2; Pennsylvania Clean Slate Act, Act 56 of 2018(palegis.us).gov
- Mich. Comp. Laws § 780.621g (Public Acts 187 and 193 of 2020)(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- Mich. Comp. Laws § 780.621 — setting aside convictions(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- N.J. P.L. 2019, c. 269; N.J.S.A. 2C:52 — Clean Slate(njleg.state.nj.us).gov
- Va. Code § 19.2-392.6 — automatic sealing, effective July 1, 2026 (2025 Va. Acts ch. 634 and 671)(law.lis.virginia.gov).gov
- Colorado SB 22-099; C.R.S. §§ 24-72-701 et seq.(leg.colorado.gov).gov
- Utah Code § 77-40a-201 (H.B. 431, 2019)(le.utah.gov).gov
- Cal. Penal Code § 1203.425 — automatic conviction relief(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- Minn. Stat. § 609A.015 (Laws 2023, ch. 52)(revisor.mn.gov).gov
- N.Y. Criminal Procedure Law § 160.57 (Laws 2023, ch. 820)(nysenate.gov).gov
- Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-142a(e) — Clean Slate automatic erasure of convictions (Public Act 21-32)(cga.ct.gov).gov
- California Courts Self-Help, Clean Your Record(courts.ca.gov).gov
- Texas State Law Library, Expunctions and Nondisclosure Orders(sll.texas.gov).gov
- FBI CJIS, Identity History Summary Checks FAQs(fbi.gov).gov
- FBI CJIS, Interstate Identification Index (III) National Fingerprint File(fbi.gov).gov
- EEOC Enforcement Guidance No. 915.002 on Arrest and Conviction Records (2012)(eeoc.gov).gov
- BJS, Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2020(bjs.ojp.gov).gov
- National Inventory of Collateral Consequences of Conviction (DOJ/BJA)(nationalreentryresourcecenter.org)