An act to add Section 1203.48 to the Penal Code, relating to crimes.
AB 2384 would create a new Penal Code section allowing certain people to petition a court to seal records of arrests, charges, or convictions after a waiting period of four years, so long as they have not been convicted of a new offense during that time. The bill applies to records that did not result in conviction, including cases that were dismissed, acquitted, vacated on appeal, or resolved through qualifying diversion programs, and to convictions for an “eligible offense” that excludes serious or violent felonies, registerable sex offenses, specified domestic violence and DUI-related offenses, and other listed crimes.
If a court grants relief, the bill requires the Department of Justice, law enforcement agencies, and other criminal justice agencies to seal the relevant records, and it directs DOJ to ask the FBI to seal any corresponding records for noncriminal justice purposes. The bill also provides that sealed records are generally not disclosed, that the petitioner may respond as if the sealed matter did not occur, and that public court records may not disclose the petitioner’s full name. It preserves limited access for criminal justice agencies where required by an initiative statute, and it bars relief if the petitioner is subject to an unexpired criminal protective order or has not paid victim restitution.
The bill would add a new record-sealing remedy to California law, expanding post-case relief beyond the existing human-trafficking-related vacatur framework. It would impose new duties on the Department of Justice, local law enforcement, and other criminal justice agencies to process sealing orders within specified timeframes, which the bill identifies as a state-mandated local program. It also includes reimbursement language if the Commission on State Mandates finds reimbursable costs. In addition, the bill makes a technical, nonsubstantive change to Penal Code Section 236.4 concerning human trafficking fines.
The available vote history suggests the bill has generally received favorable committee support, with a majority “do pass” recommendation and only one recorded no vote in the committee action provided. The absence of transcript excerpts limits insight into detailed debate, but the overall posture indicates the measure was viewed positively enough to advance, while still being referred onward for fiscal review. The bill’s focus on sealing records for people with old or non-conviction cases appears consistent with a reform-oriented approach that likely appealed to supporters.
The main points of contention are likely the breadth of eligibility and the administrative burden on courts, prosecutors, DOJ, and local law enforcement. Opponents or cautious members may be concerned that the bill extends sealing relief beyond human trafficking survivors to a broader class of defendants, including some convicted persons, and that it requires agencies to locate, seal, and coordinate records across jurisdictions. The bill also excludes serious and violent felonies, sex offenses, certain domestic violence offenses, and DUI-related offenses, which suggests an effort to narrow the remedy and address public-safety concerns. Another potential issue is the interaction with initiative statutes, since sealed conviction records remain accessible to criminal justice agencies when required by those laws.