This Fiscal Note is not an official copy and should not be quoted or cited.
This Fiscal Note is not an official copy and should not be quoted or cited.
Fiscal Note - SB 0520 - Allows expungement of certain criminal records
1COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH
OVERSIGHT DIVISION
FISCAL NOTE
L.R. NO.: 2126-01
BILL NO.: SB 520
SUBJECT: Crimes and Punishment; Criminal Procedure; Courts; Evidence; Public Records, Public Meetings
TYPE: Original
DATE: March 22, 1999
FISCAL SUMMARY
|
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON STATE FUNDS | |||
| FUND AFFECTED | FY 2000 | FY 2001 | FY 2002 |
| General Revenue | (Could exceed $100,000) | (Could exceed $100,000) | (Could exceed $100,000) |
| Criminal Records | ($284,118) | ($279,036) | ($286,046) |
| Partial Estimated
Net Effect on All State Funds |
($284,118 to Unknown)* | ($279,036 to Unknown)* | ($286,046 to Unknown)* |
* Does not include unknown costs to CTS which could exceed $100,000 and unknown costs to DOC of under $100,000.
|
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FEDERAL FUNDS | |||
| FUND AFFECTED | FY 2000 | FY 2001 | FY 2002 |
| Federal Funds | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Total Estimated
Net Effect on All Federal Funds* |
$0 | $0 | $0 |
*Could result in federal sanctions of approximately $7.5 million annually.
|
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON LOCAL FUNDS | |||
| FUND AFFECTED | FY 2000 | FY 2001 | FY 2002 |
| Local Government | (Unknown) | (Unknown) | (Unknown) |
Numbers within parentheses: ( ) indicate costs or losses
This fiscal note contains 7 pages.
FISCAL ANALYSIS
ASSUMPTION
Officials of the Department of Corrections (DOC) stated that DOC has the means available to electronically delete the certain criminal conviction records referred to in this bill. However, conviction records contained or referred to in written files would have to be removed manually as those records would have been stored during the intervening years at State Archives. DOC officials 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 had no means to predict the number of manual expungements that would be required. Therefore, DOC officials assume the fiscal impact to DOC would be unknown, but less than $100,000 per year.
Officials of the Office of the Attorney General, State Public Defender and the Department of Revenue assume this proposal would have no fiscal impact to their agencies.
Officials of the Office of Prosecution Services (OPS) indicated that it was unclear who would be required to do the expungements. If prosecutors would be required to do the expungements there would be cost to prosecutors, but OPS officials assume the impact would be under $100,000. In response to a similar proposal, OPS officials assumed there would be no fiscal impact to their agency. OPS officials also assumed that any increase in caseload for local prosecutors as a result of the proposal would be minimal and could be absorbed with existing resources. Since this proposal does not specify that prosecutors would be doing the expungements and based on OPS's response to a similar proposal, Oversight assumes any fiscal impact could be absorbed with existing resources.
Officials of the State Courts Administrator (CTS) assume the proposed legislation would provide for expungement of criminal records upon petition to the court, establishment of certain facts and after a hearing. The proposal would apply to individuals whose only conviction resulted in an SIS and the individual has been discharged from court supervision.
CTS officials stated that it is unknown how many individuals might use the provision. In FY 98, there were about 28,000 SIS. There would be a large pool of people who might petition the court who received an SIS in prior years who might qualify.
Each petition would require additional clerk and judge time. There would be increased workload in the courts and law enforcement, both in searching records and handling inquiries, and in the actual work of expunging when granted.
ASSUMPTION (continued)
No fee is provided, but CTS officials assume the standard civil filing fee would be applicable to the petition, which is $45, of which $36 goes to general revenue and $9 goes to the county.
CTS officials assume the petitioner would have the burden of proving he was qualified, as the court would not have the resources to investigate the claims, and it is assumed the prosecutor could intervene to challenge the petition.
With each petition, some number of notices would need to be sent and some responses filed. A hearing would need to be scheduled and held and, if expungement was ordered, orders would have to be sent, and they would have to be executed. Costs to the state and counties would exceed revenues from filing fees.
Increased costs would depend upon the number of times the procedure was used. In the initial years, CTS officials could anticipate a large number of petitions from the prior SIS cases. Costs could exceed $100,000, but specific estimates are not feasible.
Officials of the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) assume this proposal, which would allow for the expungement of a criminal records, could put the state in noncompliance with the federal commercial driver's licensing provisions. 49 USCA s 31314, provides that the Secretary of Transportation shall withhold 5 percent of the state's apportionment under section 104(b)(1), (2), (5) and (6) of title 23 if the state does not comply with 49 USCA s 31311 regarding state requirements for the commercial driver's license program. One of these requirements is that a state maintain records of commercial drivers who have been arrested or convicted of driving with a BAC of .04. The estimated loss of federal funds for the 5% penalty would be $7,311,850 for FY00, $7,474,100 for FY01 and $7,604,900 for FY02.
Officials from the Department of Public Safety, Missouri State Highway Patrol's (MHP) Information System Division (ISD) stated that ISD would be required to develop automated procedures to address the closing and reopening of records for those individuals who met the provisions of this proposal. Two criminal history batch procedures and two TAS procedures would be required, taking 75 hours each. The current state contract price for consulting services is $96.00 per hour. Therefore, the total cost for the procedures would be $28,800 x 4 x 75 hours).
ASSUMPTION (continued)
MHP's Traffic Division would also be affected by this proposal. This division enters roughly 300,000 records into 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 estimated that 150,000 records would beet the criteria for expungement but only 75,000 would actually be expunged. If the average FTE can expunge 10 records per hour and the FTE works 2,080 hours per year, three Quality Control Clerks would be requested to expunge the 75,000 records.
MHP's Criminal Records Division, this proposal would seem to allow for the expungement of all SIS's, expungement of a record for anyone off probation, anyone discharged from the supervision of the court, and anyone with any offense on a person's record as long as there is only one offense. In 1997, MHP received 130,000 felony and misdemeanor arrests. If 20% of the arrests were 1st time arrests and/or received an SIS, there would be 26,000 records eligible for expungement for 1997. Assuming the same ratios exist for the past 10 years, a total of 260,000 records would qualify for expungement. With a Quality Control Clerk expunging an average of 12 records per day, it would take 92 Quality Control Clerks to handle the expungements in one year (based on 235 working days per year).
MHP would request a total of 95 FTE Quality Control Clerks ($19,968) 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 95 FTE. MHP estimates construction costs at $423,938, janitorial costs at $4,988, and utility costs at $7,980.
In response to a similar proposal from the 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.
| FISCAL IMPACT - State Government | FY 2000 | FY 2001 | FY 2002 |
| (10 Mo.) | |||
| GENERAL REVENUE FUND | |||
| Income - State Courts Administrator | |||
| Filing fees | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown |
| Costs - State Courts Administrator | (Could | (Could | (Could |
| Processing petitions | exceed | exceed | exceed |
| $100,000) | $100,000) | $100,000) | |
| Costs - Department of Corrections | |||
| Expunging records | (Under | (Under | (Under |
| $100,000) | $100,000) | $100,000) | |
|
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON |
|||
| GENERAL REVENUE FUND | (Could | (Could | (Could |
| exceed | exceed | exceed | |
| $100,000) | $100,000) | $100,000) | |
| CRIMINAL RECORDS SYSTEM FUND | |||
| Costs - Department of Public Safety | |||
| Missouri State Highway Patrol (MHP) | |||
| Personal Service (10 FTE) | ($170,492) | ($209,789) | ($215,034) |
| Fringe Benefits | (65,486) | (62,706) | (64,274) |
| Equipment and Expense | (48,140) | (6,541) | (6,738) |
| Total Costs - MHP | ($284,118) | ($279,036) | ($286,046) |
|
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON |
|||
| CRIMINAL RECORDS SYSTEM | ($284,118) | ($279,036) | ($286,046) |
| FISCAL IMPACT - State Government | FY 2000 | FY 2001 | FY 2002 |
| (continued) | (10 Mo.) | ||
| FEDERAL FUNDS | |||
| Loss - Missouri Department of Transportation* | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| *Could result in federal sanctions of approximately $7.5 million annually. | |||
| FISCAL IMPACT - Local Government | FY 2000 | FY 2001 | FY 2002 |
| (10 Mo.) | |||
| Income - Counties | |||
| Filing fees | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown |
| Cost - Counties/Political Subdivisions | |||
| Processing expungement petitions, | |||
| actual expungement procedures | (Unknown) | (Unknown) | (Unknown) |
| FISCAL IMPACT - Small Business | |||
| No direct fiscal impact to small businesses would be expected as a result of this proposal. | |||
DESCRIPTION
This proposal would allow expungement of criminal records for a person who received a suspended imposition of sentence, successfully completed probation, has no other convictions other than traffic violations, and was not involved in any pending civil action relating to the criminal record. This proposal provides a procedure for petitioning a court for an order of expungement. Any record ordered to be expunged would be destroyed, rendered illegible if destruction is not feasible, and removed from all state electronic files.
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 the Attorney General
State Courts Administrator
Department of Corrections
Missouri Department of Transportation
Department of Public Safety - Missouri State Highway Patrol
Department of Revenue
Office of Prosecution Services
State Public Defender
NOT RESPONDING - Missouri Sheriffs' Association, Missouri Deputy Sheriffs' Association and Missouri Police Chiefs Association
Jeanne Jarrett, CPA
Director
March 22, 1999