This Fiscal Note is not an official copy and should not be quoted or cited.
Fiscal Note - SB 0552 - Expunction of Criminal Records
L.R. NO. 2227-01
BILL NO. SB 552
SUBJECT: Criminal Procedure: Public Records
TYPE: Original
DATE: January 10, 1996
FISCAL SUMMARY
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON STATE FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999
General Revenue (Unknown)* (Unknown)* (Unknown)*
Criminal Records ($43,877) ($49,153) ($50,388)
Total Estimated
Net Effect on All
State Funds (Unknown)* (Unknown)* (Unknown)*
* Unknown fiscal impact (cost or loss) -- could exceed $100,000 annually.
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FEDERAL FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999
None
Total Estimated
Net Effect on All
Federal Funds $0 $0 $0
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON LOCAL FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999
Local Government $0 $0 $0
FISCAL ANALYSIS
ASSUMPTION
Officials from the Office of State Courts Administrator (CTS) assume the
proposed legislation would be retroactive and a large unknown number of
petitions could be filed, especially in the first few years. In FY 1995,
there were almost 61,000 convictions or guilty pleas that could fit the
definition of the qualifying crimes. CTS does not have access to data on the
numbers of cases from over three years ago where the defendant has had no
subsequent conviction nor age-of-defendant information, which illustrates
the potential size of the fiscal impact.
The proposed legislation is unclear as to whether suspended imposition of
sentence cases would be included. There is also no provision made to notify
agencies which have records of the prior conviction of the expungement, nor
provision for supervision of the community service. Additionally, CTS does
not have on-line access to the computerized criminal history records of the
Highway Patrol and FBI; therefore, it would be difficult to confirm
compliance during the probationary period.
Officials from the Department of Revenue (DOR) assume the proposed
legislation could cause serious long range implications relating to DWI
convictions. It would make it possible for reports submitted for
administrative or refusal actions to be expunged and DOR would be unable to
use them. Additionally, DOR officials may not be aware of an expunged report
and may be held liable for its use.
Officials from the Office of the Attorney General (AGO) assume they would
need one additional FTE Assistant Attorney General I ($30,000 per year) and
.25 FTE Legal Secretary ($17,500 per year), equipment and operating expenses
to carry out the provisions of this proposal with an estimated cost of
approximately $58,000 per full fiscal year to the General Revenue Fund. AGO
represents the Missouri State Highway Patrol in cases which involve changes
relating to criminal records. AGO might also represent state agency
employees prosecuted under the penalty provisions of the proposed
legislation.
Officials from the Department of Corrections (DOC) assume the proposed
legislation could affect DOC if they were required to expunge the criminal
records from their databases, as statistical data is used for projection and
planning purposes. DOC does not have the ability to accomplish the manual or
automated act of expunging the data, as it does not exist in the DOC computer
record software. The cost of such a software and programming change cannot
be estimated at this time. The proposed legislation could also affect the
sentence length determinations under Section 558.019, RSMo, 1994. No data
exists to determine the number of people who might be prosecuted under the
penalty provisions of the proposed legislation; however, DOC officials assume
that few convictions would result in incarceration.
Officials from the Department of Public Safety (Missouri State Highway
Patrol) assume the proposed legislation would have a significant fiscal
impact on their budget due to the great number of expungements anticipated.
They would need 2 FTE Quality Control Clerk I's ($15,900 per year), equipment
and operating expenses to carry out the provisions of this proposal with an
estimated cost of approximately $50,000 per full fiscal year to the Criminal
Records System Fund.
Officials from the Office of the State Public Defender, the Department of
Public Safety (Missouri State Water Patrol), and the Office of Prosecution
Services assume the proposed legislation would have no fiscal impact on their
respective budgets.
Oversight assumes the proposed legislation could cause a significant number
of expungement petitions to be filed. The fiscal impact is too speculative
to quantify, but Oversight anticipates the costs could exceed $100,000 in any
fiscal year.
FISCAL IMPACT - State Government FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999
(10 Mo.)
GENERAL REVENUE FUND
Costs - Office of the Attorney General (AGO)
Personal Service (1.25 FTE) ($28,646) ($35,234) ($36,115)
Fringe Benefits (8,806) (10,831) (11,102)
Equipment and Expense (16,743) (12,413) (12,783)
Total Costs - AGO ($54,195) ($58,478) ($60,000)
Costs - Office of State Courts
Administrator (Unknown) (Unknown) (Unknown)
Costs - Department of Revenue (Unknown) (Unknown) (Unknown)
Costs - Department of Corrections (Unknown) (Unknown) (Unknown)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON
GENERAL REVENUE FUND (Unknown) (Unknown) (Unknown)
CRIMINAL RECORDS SYSTEM FUND
Costs - Department of Public Safety
(Missouri State Highway Patrol) (MHP)
Personal Service (2 FTE) ($27,163) ($33,410) ($34,245)
Fringe Benefits (11,794) (14,507) (14,869)
Equipment and Expense ( 4,920) ( 1,236) ( 1,274)
Total Costs - MHP ($43,877) ($49,153) ($50,388)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON
CRIMINAL RECORDS SYSTEM ($43,877) ($49,153) ($50,388)
FISCAL IMPACT - Local Government FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999
(10 Mo.)
$0 $0 $0
DESCRIPTION
The proposed legislation would provide for the expungement of certain
criminal records. A person who has been convicted of one or more felonies or
misdemeanors would be able to petition the court to have his criminal record
expunged if he meets the following requirements: 1) he has not been
convicted for three years since being released from prison; 2) he is not
currently on probation or parole; 3) he has not previously petitioned the
court to have his record expunged; and 4) he is at least 25 years old. A
person would not be eligible to have his record expunged if he has been
convicted of: 1) certain violent felonies; 2) a sex-related offense; or 3)
a drug-related offense that is punishable as a Class A or B felony.
If the court finds that a person has met the above requirements, it would
order the person's criminal record closed for a probationary period of three
years. The court would also order the person to perform 100 hours of
community service. The court would be able to stay an action to expunge such
records until adjudication if the person was arrested for a crime during the
probationary period. After three years elapse, the person would be able to
motion the court to review its prior determination. The court would then
expunge the criminal records of the person if he has not been arrested in the
intervening period.
The proposed legislation would make a person guilty of a Class B misdemeanor
if he knowingly fails to expunge a record or releases information that has
been ordered expunged. A person who uses information from expunged records
for financial gain would be guilty of a Class B felony.
This legislation is not federally mandated, would not duplicate any other
program and would not require additional capital improvements or rental
space.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Office of State Courts Administrator
Department of Revenue
Office of the Attorney General
Department of Corrections
Department of Public Safety (Missouri State Highway Patrol)
Office of State Public Defender
Department of Public Safety (Missouri State Water Patrol)
Office of Prosecution Services