Court-ordered Sealing of Criminal History Records:
HB 325 revises Florida’s law on court-ordered sealing of criminal history records. The bill expands eligibility by allowing a person to seek sealing even when the record relates to certain misdemeanor offenses for which the person was adjudicated guilty, so long as the offense was not a violent offense and was not one of several specified domestic violence or related misdemeanor offenses. It also revises the disqualifying prior-history rules and clarifies that a person generally must have no more than two prior sealing or expunctions, while preserving the existing bar on prior sealing of a record for which the person was adjudicated guilty in certain circumstances.
The bill also broadens the court’s authority to seal records tied to more than one arrest or more than one adjudication of guilt when those additional matters directly relate to the original arrest or adjudication, so long as the court expressly states that intent in the sealing order. It preserves the ability to seal only part of a record and keeps the general rule that sealing applies to one arrest or one incident unless the related-arrest exception is used. The act would take effect July 1, 2025.
HB 325 would amend section 943.059, Florida Statutes, governing court-ordered sealing of criminal history records. Its main legal effect is to widen access to sealing for some people with misdemeanor adjudications and to allow courts to seal additional related arrests or related adjudications of guilt in a single case when specifically ordered. The bill also leaves intact the list of sensitive employment, licensing, and other contexts in which a sealed record may still have to be disclosed, including criminal justice employment, bar admission, child- and elder-related positions, education-related screening, firearm purchases, insurance licensing, guardianship, and concealed weapon licensing.
The available context shows no recorded committee debate or vote history, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment beyond the bill’s introduction and referral. Based on the text alone, the measure appears reform-oriented and aimed at expanding record-sealing opportunities for people with limited criminal histories, while still preserving public-safety and screening exceptions for sensitive jobs and licenses. The bill ultimately died in the Criminal Justice Subcommittee, indicating it did not advance despite the proposed expansion.
The likely points of contention are the bill’s broader eligibility for sealing and its allowance for sealing additional related adjudications of guilt, which could be viewed as giving more relief to people with criminal records. Opponents may have been concerned about public safety, transparency, and the effect on background checks, especially for positions involving children, the elderly, health care, education, firearms, and law enforcement. Supporters would likely emphasize second chances and reducing collateral consequences for people with limited or nonviolent misdemeanor histories.