{"id":86187,"date":"2026-06-24T08:21:27","date_gmt":"2026-06-24T16:21:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/2026\/06\/24\/hundreds-of-thousands-of-missouri-marijuana-conviction-records-may-still-exist-despite-deadline-to-clear-them-police-say\/"},"modified":"2026-06-24T19:45:51","modified_gmt":"2026-06-25T03:45:51","slug":"hundreds-of-thousands-of-missouri-marijuana-conviction-records-may-still-exist-despite-deadline-to-clear-them-police-say","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/2026\/06\/24\/hundreds-of-thousands-of-missouri-marijuana-conviction-records-may-still-exist-despite-deadline-to-clear-them-police-say\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018Hundreds Of Thousands\u2019 Of Missouri Marijuana Conviction Records May Still Exist Despite Deadline To Clear Them, Police Say"},"content":{"rendered":"<\/p>\n

There\u2019s \u201cno evidence of these claims was presented to the circuit court,\u201d judges said.<\/em><\/p>\n

By Rebecca Rivas, Missouri Independent<\/strong><\/p>\n

Missouri courts were supposed to automatically erase eligible marijuana misdemeanors<\/a> from criminal records by June 8, 2023, six months after voters legalized recreational marijuana.<\/p>\n

But in a recent St. Louis case, the Missouri State Highway Patrol told an appellate court that \u201chundreds of thousands\u201d of marijuana offenses may still exist on criminal records that should have been cleared.<\/p>\n

The patrol offered no evidence to back up that estimate, the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District noted in an April opinion. But the case exposed a practical problem with Missouri\u2019s marijuana expungement process: If a court missed an eligible case, it remains unclear what the person is supposed to do about it.<\/p>\n

So far, the answers are inconsistent. People whose cases were missed have been told to ask a circuit clerk to fix the issue administratively, file a regular expungement petition or pursue a writ of mandamus. None has emerged as a clearly established statewide remedy.<\/p>\n

The appeal involved a St. Louis man identified in court records as D.S., who sought to expunge a 2003 misdemeanor marijuana conviction through a court petition intended for incarcerated individuals. A St. Louis County circuit judge granted the marijuana expungement.<\/p>\n

The patrol did not argue that the marijuana offense was ineligible. Instead, it argued that the court had no authority to grant the request through that kind of petition because the constitutional amendment required misdemeanor marijuana expungements to happen \u201cautomatically.\u201d Only incarcerated people with eligible marijuana offenses, the patrol argued, had to petition a court.<\/p>\n

Allowing such petitions, the patrol argued, would open the floodgates to \u201chundreds of thousands\u201d of offenses that court clerks have missed and cause \u201can immense burden\u201d on state courts.<\/p>\n

The case itself is a sealed record but the court\u2019s April opinion is a public record, and the appellate judges summarized the patrol\u2019s argument in a footnote.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhile MSHP claims hundreds of thousands of offenses exist that should have been automatically expunged and predicts that allowing persons entitled for automatic expungement to petition would place an immense burden on Missouri courts,\u201d the footnote states, \u201cno evidence of these claims was presented to the circuit court.\u201d<\/p>\n

After the underlying case was closed June 4, the highway patrol said it could comment on the litigation.<\/p>\n

In an email to The Independent, Capt. Scott White, a spokesman for the highway patrol, said estimates of \u201cpotentially eligible offenses were based on the broad language of the constitutional amendment\u201d and based on the agency\u2019s records in its Central Repository.<\/p>\n

The Central Repository is where the highway patrol maintains criminal history records reported by law enforcement agencies and courts throughout the state. It now also updates these records when marijuana cases are expunged.<\/p>\n

White said the patrol \u201chas no concerns with the petition process when it is conducted in accordance with the amendment\u2019s requirements.\u201d<\/p>\n

While the judges agreed with the patrol that \u201cthe circuit court exceeded its authority in hearing the petition,\u201d they ultimately sided with the man because the courts were obligated to expunge the man\u2019s misdemeanor by June 8, 2023\u2014the deadline set in the constitutional amendment.<\/p>\n

Lee Camp, an attorney with ArchCity Defenders law firm and who represented D.S., said the ruling is already having repercussions.<\/p>\n

His organization has been approached by several people whose records should have been expunged but weren\u2019t. Some have since filed petitions in St. Louis County, and their cases have been dismissed due to the appellate court ruling.<\/p>\n

John O\u2019Sullivan, spokesman for the St. Louis County court where the expungement occurred, said that\u2019s because the court is interpreting the appellate decision to require that petition to proceed under Missouri\u2019s regular criminal expungement law\u2014not the marijuana amendment\u2019s petition process.<\/p>\n

Camp said that interpretation is concerning because under state law the county cites, people can only expunge three misdemeanors in their lifetime.<\/p>\n

\u201cI appreciate St. Louis County is trying to clarify a process,\u201d Camp said, \u201cbut there\u2019s no way ArchCity could advise any of our clients to burn these statutory expungements on these things.\u201d<\/p>\n

The appellate judges agreed and wrote D.S. \u201cshould not have to use one of the three expungements permitted for misdemeanors when the circuit court was directed by the Missouri Constitution to expunge the conviction at issue.\u201d<\/p>\n

The D.S. case shows, Camp said, the courts have not demonstrated that they have completed expungements. He believes the next step is for citizens to file a writ of mandamus, which would order public officials to complete tasks mandated by law.<\/p>\n

Camp added, \u201cThis is a mess.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u2018Reach out to your circuit clerk\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n

The case raises questions about what people are supposed to do if the clerk\u2019s office hasn\u2019t expunged an eligible marijuana judgment.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf someone feels as if they should have gotten an automatic expungement for a marijuana judgement and did not, they may reach out to the St. Louis County Circuit Clerk\u2019s office,\u201d O\u2019Sullivan said.<\/p>\n

O\u2019Sullivan added if the clerk\u2019s office reviews the case file and finds it should have received an automatic expungement, \u201cthey will work to get the charge expunged and there would be no need for someone to file a petition.\u201d<\/p>\n

If someone still wants to file a petition in a misdemeanor marijuana case, O\u2019Sullivan said the appellate ruling states people need to file it like a regular expungement for a criminal case, and \u201cnot the constitutional amendment as that deals with incarcerated individuals.\u201d<\/p>\n

Missouri courts have expunged about 155,000 marijuana cases since voters approved the 2022 constitutional amendment to legalize recreational cannabis, according to data compiled by Missouri\u2019s state courts system.<\/p>\n

The state court system estimates that about 334,000 cases have been reviewed\u2014which would mean the counties expunged 46 percent of the cases they reviewed. But clerks say the number of cases reviewed is higher because the paper records reviewed and deemed ineligible weren\u2019t documented.<\/p>\n

Courts were mandated, as part of the amendment, to search their files for eligible marijuana-related charges and then make it as if they never existed on people\u2019s records.<\/p>\n

But what should people do if court clerks missed their case?<\/p>\n

Saline County Circuit Clerk Becky Uhlich, who serves as first vice president of the Missouri Circuit Clerk Association, said she would advise people to contact the clerk for the county court.<\/p>\n

\u201cPlease reach out to your circuit clerk, bring it to their attention, and let them investigate why it wasn\u2019t automatically expunged,\u2019\u201d she said.<\/p>\n

In 2023, Uhlich said the court clerks received lists with thousands of potential eligible offenses from the Office of State Courts Administrator.<\/p>\n

\u201cComputers generated those reports,\u201d she said. \u201cComputers are not always accurate in those things.\u201d<\/p>\n

The lists didn\u2019t include people who were under 21 at the time of the arrest or paper files, which largely end around 2014. For paper records, court clerks have to read summaries for every single criminal record.<\/p>\n

The turnaround was also fast, given the amendment passed on Dec. 8, 2022 and the court clerks had six months to complete the task. There wasn\u2019t a specific year courts needed to search back to outlined in the constitution, clerks have previously told The Independent.<\/p>\n

However, Uhlich and others have suggested it\u2019s 1971, which was the first marijuana-related drug statutes, based on information the state administrator provided to court clerks.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis was new territory,\u201d she said. \u201cI was really blessed because I was able to hire someone who had previous knowledge and we met our deadline, but I can\u2019t say that that was the case for every county.\u201d<\/p>\n

Joel Currier, spokesman for St. Louis circuit court, said their clerks are continuing to review cases for eligibility.<\/p>\n

\u201cOf the thousands of cases that must be reviewed by a limited number of available clerks, it\u2019s possible either some cases have been missed or that they\u2019re<\/p>\n

still awaiting to be reviewed,\u201d Currier said. \u201cAnyone who believes they still may have a case eligible for automatic expungement may contact the St. Louis Circuit Clerk\u2019s Office to inquire and our clerks will work to review them as quickly as possible.\u201d<\/p>\n

This type of variation from county to county concerns Camp and the ArchCity Defenders, a legal advocacy organization.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s not just about getting the expungement order itself,\u201d Camp said. \u201cIt\u2019s really what it means if you\u2019re in the category of people who have not received that mandatory expungement order. That means you\u2019re not enjoying the same privileges as someone that two years ago received automatic expungement in a different circuit.\u201d<\/p>\n

The lack of expungement, Camp said, could be the difference between receiving employment, housing and benefits opportunities.<\/p>\n

Hundreds of thousands of cases<\/strong><\/p>\n

Dan Viets, an attorney, Missouri NORML coordinator and chair of the advisory board of the 2022 marijuana legalization campaign, estimated last year that hundreds of thousands of marijuana cases may still be on people\u2019s records\u2014in agreement with the highway patrol.<\/p>\n

His estimate, he said, was based on FBI crime statistics showing more than 16,600 marijuana arrests in 2018, though not all law enforcement agencies report their statistics to the FBI. A conservative estimate of 20,000 marijuana arrests per year, Viets argued, would mean that the 140,000 expungements so far \u201crepresent only about seven years of such arrests.\u201d<\/p>\n

While he still believes that there are many older cases that haven\u2019t been expunged, Viets said he\u2019s taken a step back from his initial claim last year\u2014largely because the courts haven\u2019t seen a mass number of people petitioning for expungements. That\u2019s why he disagrees with the highway patrol\u2019s claim in the D.S. case that the courts would be overwhelmed if everyone was allowed to petition for a marijuana misdemeanor expungement.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt has not happened,\u201d Viets said. \u201cThat\u2019s the most persuasive evidence\u2026and we defense attorneys have been filing petitions for expungement since that time.\u201d<\/p>\n

Viets also strongly disagrees that circuit courts exceeded their authority to hear D.S.\u2019 petition. Viets has filed a few dozen petitions for clients whose records weren\u2019t automatically cleared.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s just not reasonable to deny people access to the courts,\u201d Viets said.<\/p>\n

He also called the part in the decision about the circuit court\u2019s authority \u201cmere dicta,\u201d or statements made by a judge in a legal opinion that weren\u2019t necessary to resolve the case and aren\u2019t binding. The legally binding part of the decision, Viets said, was that the appellate judges found the circuit court\u2019s decision to hear the petition \u201charmless,\u201d since they were obligated to do it two years ago.<\/p>\n

What\u2019s also not written in the Constitution, he said, is people\u2019s right to file a writ of mandamus. It\u2019s something he\u2019s thought about doing to ensure courts complete the marijuana expungements, especially the ones that didn\u2019t search through criminal records past the 1980s and some municipal courts.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe didn\u2019t say, \u2018Yes, you have a right to file a writ of mandamus,\u2019 in the language of [the marijuana constitutional amendment],\u201d said Viets, who helped write the language, \u201cbut by God, due process requires that every citizen has the right to file for a writ of mandamus.\u201d<\/p>\n

This story was first published by Missouri Independent.<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

Photo elements courtesy of rawpixel<\/a> and Philip Steffan<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

The post \u2018Hundreds Of Thousands\u2019 Of Missouri Marijuana Conviction Records May Still Exist Despite Deadline To Clear Them, Police Say<\/a> appeared first on Marijuana Moment<\/a>.<\/p>\n


\n
\nRead More: \u2018Hundreds Of Thousands\u2019 Of Missouri Marijuana Conviction Records May Still Exist Despite Deadline To Clear Them, Police Say<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

There\u2019s \u201cno evidence of these claims was presented to the circuit court,\u201d judges said. By Rebecca Rivas, Missouri Independent Missouri courts were supposed to automatically erase eligible marijuana misdemeanors from criminal records by June 8, 2023, six months after voters legalized recreational marijuana. But in a recent St. Louis case,Continue Reading<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":457,"featured_media":0,"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\/86187"}],"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=86187"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/86187\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":86188,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/86187\/revisions\/86188"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=86187"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=86187"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=86187"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}