![](\"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/10\/Automatic-cannabis-sealing-1024x614-2.png\")
<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
\u201cThere are a ton of paper records. Courts we know are dealing with that in various ways.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n By Alexander Lekhtman, Filter<\/strong><\/p>\n Nearly five years after California voters legalized marijuana, potentially hundreds of thousands of residents still have publicly available cannabis-related criminal records that the law requires to be sealed\u2014even though the state passed a bill to address this three years ago. While this continues, people\u2019s cannabis convictions can still be searched by employers and police, leaving them vulnerable to discrimination and targeting.<\/p>\n Former Governor Jerry Brown signed\u00a0Assembly Bill 1793<\/span><\/a>\u00a0into law in September 2018. Known as the \u201cBonta bill,\u201d after its lead sponsor (current Attorney General Rob Bonta), this created \u201cautomatic sealing\u201d for cannabis criminal records. It required prosecutors in the state Department of Justice to review records dating back over 40 years, and was meant to provide justice for people who\u2019d been arrested, convicted or sentenced on charges that would no longer apply post-legalization.<\/span><\/p>\n But the deadline for California to complete this sealing process\u2014July 2020\u2014passed over a year ago. And California residents, advocates and officials reached by\u00a0Filter<\/i>\u00a0confirmed, to different degrees, that the state has failed to honor its promise to provide justice for people with cannabis records, who are disproportionately people of color. Disappointingly, even California government officials can\u2019t give exact details on how many people are affected.<\/span><\/p>\n Expunging a record usually means it is permanently destroyed, while sealing\u2014which is what California does\u2014merely hides it from public view or from being searched. In either case, it\u2019s an urgent need.<\/span><\/p>\n Having a criminal record makes it legal for employers, banks and schools, among others, to discriminate against you. There\u00a0are\u00a0<\/span>over 44,000 different <\/span>forms<\/span><\/a> of sanctioned discrimination<\/span>\u00a0against people with records, in all areas of life.\u00a0And the dangers\u00a0<\/span>are even <\/span>greater<\/span><\/a> for immigrants<\/span>\u00a0in the US<\/span>; a simple drug possession violation can subject undocumented immigrants, and even legal permanent residents, to deportation.<\/span><\/p>\n In California, the legal non-medical cannabis market\u00a0is already <\/span>valued<\/span><\/a> at $5 billion<\/span>\u00a0and growing fast. It is absurd that while businesses can sell cannabis as legally as an iPhone, people can still have their cannabis records searched when applying for a job.<\/span><\/p>\n Perhaps the biggest barrier with expungement and sealing in general is that too many people with cannabis records remain in the dark about this whole process and what their rights are. That\u2019s why advocates call for legislation like the Bonta bill, making the process automatic.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cExpungement is not really straightforward,\u201d Felicia Carbajal, programming director for National Expungement Works (NEW), told\u00a0Filter<\/em>.\u00a0NEW\u00a0<\/span>has\u00a0<\/span>worked<\/span><\/a> for over three years<\/span>\u00a0to share education and support for expungement all over the US.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cSo many people don\u2019t know that they\u2019re eligible,\u201d she continued. \u201cI imagine a lot of the folks who have those convictions aren\u2019t running to their local agencies to get this taken care of, nor are they taking it upon themselves to do it because it is arduous. It\u2019s not an easy process if you\u2019ve never filled out forms or if you\u2019re operating from a space of trauma. Many times people from historically-underserved communities get so underwhelmed when they\u2019re put in these situations.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n California offers the option of sealing your record manually. But this puts a burden on impacted people. Carbajal noted that someone in Los Angeles County might have to pay $200 in various fees to seal a record, in addition to extra costs like missing work, paying for gas or obtaining legal support.\u00a0<\/span>\u201cIf folks have to decide between eating and taking care of an expungement \u2026 it\u2019s not a priority.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n The difficulties of manual record sealing, especially for low-income residents, led to the movement for \u201cautomatic\u201d sealing in California. Governments that now admit the injustice of marijuana prohibition ought to do the hard work to clear these records, goes the reasoning\u2014not impacted people.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Despite the software\u2019s convenience, there are problems algorithms can\u2019t yet solve, like political stonewalling.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n In\u00a0January 2018,<\/span>\u00a0months before California\u2019s legislature passed the Bonta bill, then-San Francisco District Attorney George Gasc\u00f3n became<\/a> the first in the state to jump-start the automatic sealing movement. He announced his office would take action to seal and reclassify thousands of cannabis records dating back to 1975.<\/span><\/p>\n In May 2018, Gasc\u00f3n\u2019s office partnered with Code for America, a digital technology nonprofit. The company developed a software, \u201cClear My Record,\u201d which vastly sped up the process: It reads thousands of criminal records, identifies those eligible for sealing, and submits them to the DA in a matter of seconds.<\/span><\/p>\n This innovation has helped DA offices throughout California\u2014and in <\/span>other states<\/span><\/a> like Illinois<\/span>\u2014to process tens of thousands of cannabis records at a time. But despite its convenience, there are problems algorithms can\u2019t yet solve, like political stonewalling.<\/span><\/p>\n Here\u2019s what was supposed to happen under the Bonta bill.<\/p>\n First, the DOJ was required to identify which records were eligible for sealing, and which sentences could be reduced. The state\u2019s courts estimated about 220,000 cannabis convictions, in total, would be eligible.<\/span><\/p>\n The DOJ was then required to file a petition for each eligible case\u2014a request to seal a record or reduce a sentence\u2014to district attorneys in each of California\u2019s 58 counties, by July 2019.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The DAs then had one year to approve or reject these petitions, by July 2020. Finally, county courts would have to seal the approved records and inform the DOJ, whiich would then update its own database of records.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cNobody knows\u2014I don\u2019t care who you ask, that\u2019s the answer.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n So what has gone wrong with a process designed to protect hundreds of thousands of people?<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cNobody knows\u2014I don\u2019t care who you ask, that\u2019s the answer,\u201d William Armaline, human rights director at San Jos\u00e9 State University, told\u00a0Filter.<\/i>\u00a0\u201cWe don\u2019t actually know right now the status of these clearance efforts across the state.\u201d Armaline was part of the local movement that fought to seal\u00a0over 11,000<\/span><\/a> cannabis records in Santa Clara County<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n Nonetheless, sources described to\u00a0Filter\u00a0<\/i>some of the various different causes, and potential causes, of this failure. These include inaction from county courts, and the COVID-19 pandemic slowing down government functions.<\/span><\/p>\n The California Department of Justice (DOJ) keeps a \u201ccriminal record repository\u201d where it records each\u00a0person<\/em>\u00a0with a record throughout the state. County trial courts, meanwhile, keep records of specific cases.<\/span><\/p>\n So if someone were convicted of three misdemeanors in Los Angeles County, there would be one record at the DOJ which lists those three convictions\u2014but three different records in the LA court system. Even if the DOJ seems to have largely fulfilled its first obligation of filing petitions to the counties, the sheer complexity of matching records from these different systems seems to have been one factor in the delay.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cThere are aspects of record-keeping in California that made this all incredibly complicated to do and measure in terms of finding the status of this,\u201d Armaline said. \u201cThere is differentiation between records held at DOJ, and various forms of records held in the individual counties that have different histories in terms of records.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cSome [counties] have records older than others, some have old paper systems, others got rid of it \u2026 the differences are boringly long and complicated.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Others who have worked with the counties agreed. \u201cThere is definitely room for error in the record-keeping, given there are multiple places where the records are held,\u201d Alia Toran-Burrell, an associate director for Clear My Record, told\u00a0Filter.<\/i>\u00a0\u201cIdeally, what is in the courts\u2019 records matches the DOJ\u2019s records, but that\u2019s not always the case.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n And those who work\u00a0for\u00a0<\/i>the counties also shared this concern. \u201cRecord-keeping agencies like ours went through different systems in time,\u201d Ruben Marquez, assistant public defender for Los Angeles County, told\u00a0Filter<\/i>. Marquez worked with the LA DA\u2019s office to clear over 66,000 cannabis records. He estimates over 90 percent of them were felonies.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cOne of the issues we had to keep circling back on was identifying all the potential eligible cases for dismissal,\u201d he said.<\/span><\/p>\n And different counties have taken different approaches to these problems.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cThere are a ton of paper records,\u201d Toran-Burrell said. \u201cCourts we know are dealing with that in various ways. Some felt like they need to take those paper records and digitize them in order to clear them. Other courts are contemplating not doing anything with the paper records because for background check purposes, people are not accessing the paper records \u2026 so it\u2019s less of a barrier for folks.\u00a0<\/span>If the paper records are not impeding people\u2019s lives \u2026 nothing would need to be done except for court staff not to disclose them.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Since\u00a0September 2019,<\/span>\u00a0Clear My Record has been available<\/a> for all California district attorneys to use free of charge. Toran-Burrell estimates that about 40 percent of the state\u2019s DAs have used the tool. Some chose not to, she said, simply because they have their own record-keeping processes. Asked if any of the DAs were resistant in any way towards doing this work, Toran-Burrell had nothing bad to say about them.<\/span><\/p>\n However, California\u2019s DAs\u00a0have<\/em>\u00a0sometimes worked hard to delay record-sealing. In Santa Clara County (San Jos\u00e9), for example, DA Jeff Rosen refused for years to clear 11,500 cannabis records, ignoring local activists and even turning down free help from Code for America.\u00a0He\u00a0<\/span>finally <\/span>acted<\/span><\/a>\u00a0to seal the records in April 2020, at the height of the pandemic.<\/span><\/p>\n And in Los Angeles, former DA Jackie Lacey objected to the sealing of over 2,100 cannabis records.\u00a0She\u00a0<\/span>argued<\/span><\/a> they weren\u2019t eligible<\/span>, based those people\u2019s prior convictions for other offenses.\u00a0<\/span>The public defenders\u2019 office has objected\u2014but even with a new DA in place, the problem isn\u2019t fully resolved. (The<\/span>\u00a0new DA<\/span><\/a>, ironically, is George Gasc\u00f3n, formerly of San Francisco.)<\/span><\/p>\n How many other counties throughout California have also made such oversights? It\u2019s impossible to know.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n \u201cA number of those cases, we\u2019ve continued working with the DA\u2019s office and have gotten them dismissed,\u201d Marquez said. \u201cThere are some remaining, but we\u2019ve continued to talk with their office. It is our hope the new DA leadership will dismiss the smaller number of remaining cases.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Just to show how confusing all of this is:\u00a0On September 27,\u00a0Gasc\u00f3n\u2019s office announced<\/a> it had identified about 60,000 eligible cannabis records dating back 30 years in Los Angeles County. These county records are separate from the 66,000 records that former DA Lacey addressed, which were only taken from the state DOJ database.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n That means roughly twice as many cannabis records\u00a0should<\/em>\u00a0have been sealed as the former DA actually acted on. How many other counties throughout California have also made such oversights? It\u2019s difficult to know.<\/p>\n Toran-Burrell believes that DA\u2019s offices throughout California have largely done their job to approve (or reject) cannabis records for sealing. The last hurdle is the courts, she said.<\/span><\/p>\n Marquez agreed with this, and speculated that the failure of the courts to act\u2014together with the failure of the DOJ to update its own records in cases where courts have sealed records\u2014has delayed justice for thousands.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s theoretically possible that the DOJ met its burden in notifying the prosecution, the prosecution met its burden in notifying the public defenders offices in terms of what charges if any they would object to, and that cases were dismissed by the [local county] court,\u201d he said. However, \u201cIt\u2019s possible that there were delays by the [county] Superior Courts in updating their records, and it\u2019s possible there were delays by the DOJ in updating their records.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cWe were hoping courts would prioritize clearing records; we just don\u2019t know if that\u2019s happened.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n \u201cThe law did not give a deadline to courts,\u201d Toran-Burrell said. \u201cIt just said courts have to update their records [\u2026] Assuming district attorneys have done their role, it\u2019s now in the courts\u2019 hands.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cLast year we tried to reach out to courts to find out the status of record clearance and it was pretty challenging getting info from courts about what\u2019s going on,\u201d she continued. \u201cWe acknowledge of course that COVID has been a massive challenge for everyone \u2026 at the same time, given the economic implications of COVID, people\u2019s records being cleared is super-important for economic recovery. We were hoping courts would prioritize clearing records; we just don\u2019t know if that\u2019s happened.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Court representatives from Fresno, San Bernardino and Orange Counties did not respond to\u00a0Filter<\/em>\u2018s requests for comment by publication time. All three counties have\u00a0currently or previously\u00a0banned<\/a> nonmedical cannabis sales,<\/a>\u00a0as have over half of counties statewide.<\/p>\n After publication, the Orange County Court contacted\u00a0Filter\u00a0<\/em>to confirm that the local DA\u2019s office completed its petition to seal thousands of cannabis records, which the court granted. The court notified the state, as required. But for cases that could not be identified in its system, it returned them to the DA for further action.<\/p>\n Reached by\u00a0Filter<\/i>, a press representative of the California Attorney General\u2019s Office declined to give specifics about statewide progress on marijuana record-sealing.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cWe defer to local agencies on the status of these updates and the challenges they are facing,\u201d they said. \u201cWe are also unable to speak to what is being released by local agencies, but for awareness, none of our records are publicly searchable.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Filter\u00a0<\/i>also contacted the Judicial Council of California, which oversees the state\u2019s court systems.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cWe don\u2019t have this info\u2014you\u2019d have to go to each of the state\u2019s 58 courts,\u201d said Peter Allen of the Judicial Council. \u201cIssues courts have identified to us include processing delays associated with the pandemic, such as receiving data from the DOJ or safely pulling old case records from off-site storage.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Allen confirmed that some courts have had trouble retrieving older criminal records, while others are working to electronically report records all at once.<\/span><\/p>\n According to a\u00a0December 2018 budget <\/span>document<\/span><\/a>\u00a0obtained by\u00a0Filter<\/i>, the Judicial Council estimated that about 220,000 marijuana convictions in the entire state would be affected by the Bonta bill. They requested from the legislature a total of about $17 million spread over two years, to help county courts pay the costs of processing marijuana record clearance and reduction.\u00a0The legislature <\/span>agreed<\/span>\u00a0to the full budget request.<\/span><\/p>\n The money and tools for California to fulfill its promise would doubtless materialize if the political will existed.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n The path forward from here is unclear. It\u2019s possible the only solution is for the legislature to somehow force the courts to complete this process. The same Rob Bonta who first wrote the expungement bill is now California\u2019s top law enforcement official\u2014potentially a powerful platform to help finish the job he started. And Governor Gavin Newsom, who just\u00a0won<\/a> a divisive recall election\u00a0to keep his job, could also go to bat on this issue for his voters.<\/span><\/p>\n The money and tools for California to fulfill its promise would doubtless materialize if the political will existed. Its leaders just need to focus on the problem\u2014for the sake of all the people who were wrongly targeted to begin with.<\/span><\/p>\n This article was originally published by\u00a0Filter<\/a>, an online magazine covering drug use, drug policy and human rights through a harm reduction lens. Follow Filter on\u00a0Facebook<\/a>\u00a0or\u00a0Twitter<\/a>, or sign up for its\u00a0newsletter<\/a>.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n Bank Of America Cancels Account Of Marijuana And Psychedelics Research Institute Registered With DEA<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n The post California Officials Have Failed To Seal Thousands Of Marijuana Conviction Records By The Legally Required Deadline<\/a> appeared first on Marijuana Moment<\/a>.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere are a ton of paper records. Courts we know are dealing with that in various ways.\u201d By Alexander Lekhtman, Filter Nearly five years after California voters legalized marijuana, potentially hundreds of thousands of residents still have publicly available cannabis-related criminal records that the law requires to be sealed\u2014even thoughContinue Reading<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":457,"featured_media":50550,"comment_status":"false","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[81],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50549"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/457"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=50549"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50549\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":50551,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50549\/revisions\/50551"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/50550"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=50549"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=50549"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=50549"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Why Advocates Sought Automatic Record-Sealing<\/h4>\n
\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/10\/Automatic-cannabis-sealing-1024x614-1.png\")
Why Has Automatic Expungement Ground to a Halt?<\/h4>\n
\n
Record-Keeping Differences Cause Chaos<\/h4>\n
Are District Attorneys Dragging Their Feet?<\/h4>\n
\n
The Courts\u2019 Delays<\/h4>\n
\n
The Path Forward: Will Lawmakers Take Action?<\/span><\/h4>\n
\n
\n
\n
\nRead More: California Officials Have Failed To Seal Thousands Of Marijuana Conviction Records By The Legally Required Deadline<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"