Criminal Records – Expungement and Maryland Judiciary Case Search (Expungement Reform Act of 2025)
Summary
SB432, the Expungement Reform Act of 2025, revises Maryland’s criminal record expungement laws and limits how certain records appear in Maryland Judiciary Case Search. The bill changes several waiting-period rules so that, for many eligible offenses, a person may file for expungement a set time after completion of the sentence, with “completion” defined to include the end of probation, parole, or mandatory supervision. It also expands the list of misdemeanor convictions that may be expunged and adds or clarifies eligibility rules for certain felonies and other offenses.
The bill also changes the standards courts must apply when deciding expungement petitions. In addition to considering rehabilitation and public safety, courts must consider a person’s success on probation, parole, or mandatory supervision and whether restitution has been paid or the person lacks the ability to pay. On the records-access side, the bill broadens the circumstances under which Maryland Judiciary Case Search may not refer to the existence of a charge, including certain stet dispositions and pardoned cannabis convictions.
Impact
SB432 amends multiple provisions of the Criminal Procedure Article, including definitions and expungement eligibility sections, by replacing prior references to when a person “satisfies” a sentence with the new term “completion of the sentence.” This affects filing deadlines for expungement petitions across several categories of convictions, including misdemeanors, certain felonies, domestic-related crimes, and cannabis distribution offenses. It also expands the scope of records that can be hidden from public view in Maryland Judiciary Case Search, including some cases marked stet and certain pardoned cannabis convictions, thereby affecting courts, the Judiciary’s online case-search system, prosecutors, victims, and people seeking relief from criminal records.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have broad legislative support, passing both chambers on third reading with substantial margins. The available voting history suggests a generally favorable sentiment toward expanding expungement access and improving record-sealing relief for eligible people. No committee transcript excerpts were provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate here to indicate detailed support or opposition arguments.
Contention
The main policy tensions likely involve balancing second-chance relief against public-safety and victim-notice concerns. The bill preserves objection and hearing procedures, and courts must still find that expungement is in the interest of justice and that the person is not a risk to public safety. The new restitution requirement may also be a point of contention: it can make expungement harder for people who owe money, while the bill partially addresses that by allowing courts to consider inability to pay. Another possible point of debate is the expansion of Case Search restrictions, which reduces public visibility of certain records and may concern transparency advocates.