HB 360, the Clean Slate Act of 2026, would create an automated expungement process for certain criminal cases in Maryland. It directs the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services and the Judiciary to expunge qualifying cases by July 1, 2028, and then to continue identifying and expunging newly eligible cases on a monthly basis beginning August 1, 2028. The bill defines “disposition” broadly to include outcomes such as acquittals, dismissals, nolle prosequi, guilty pleas, probation before judgment, stet, and appellate orders ending a criminal case, and defines “expunge” as removing references from the central repository and removing public access to electronic court records for the case.
The bill covers two main categories of cases. First, it applies to cases where all charges or dispositions are already eligible under existing expungement provisions, the case is otherwise eligible under current law, and at least three years have passed since disposition. Second, it applies to cases with certain misdemeanor convictions listed in existing law, excluding second-degree assault and charges marked as domestically related crimes, if the case meets other eligibility requirements and at least seven years have passed since disposition. If a person is convicted of a new crime during the seven-year period, the earlier conviction is not eligible unless the new conviction later becomes eligible for expungement.
If enacted, the bill would add a new Section 10-112.1 to the Criminal Procedure Article and would significantly expand the role of state agencies in clearing eligible records without requiring individual petitions in the covered cases. It would affect the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, the Judiciary, and people with qualifying criminal records by shifting expungement from a case-by-case application process to an automated, recurring process for eligible records.
The overall sentiment reflected in the available context appears neutral to favorable toward the bill, though no committee transcript or vote record is provided. The bill’s title and structure suggest a policy goal of easing record-clearing for people with older or lower-level offenses, but the absence of recorded discussion means there is no direct evidence here of support or opposition from legislators.
Potential points of contention are likely to center on the scope of automatic expungement, the exclusion of certain offenses such as second-degree assault and domestically related crimes, and the administrative burden on state agencies to identify and process eligible cases on a monthly basis. Another possible issue is whether the bill’s eligibility timelines and interaction with new convictions strike the right balance between public safety, record accuracy, and second-chance policy.
The bill would amend the Criminal Procedure Article by adding a new automated expungement section, requiring the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services and the Judiciary to proactively expunge qualifying records rather than waiting for individual petitions. It would affect the central repository and public electronic court records, and it would operate alongside existing expungement eligibility rules in §§ 10-105, 10-107, and 10-110, while excluding certain offenses and imposing waiting periods of three or seven years depending on the case type.
Based on the bill text and the limited context provided, the general sentiment appears supportive of expanding access to expungement and reducing barriers for people with eligible criminal records. The measure is framed as a Clean Slate Act, indicating a reform-oriented approach, and there is no recorded vote or transcript showing organized opposition or debate in the provided materials.
Likely areas of contention include whether automatic expungement should be mandatory for all qualifying cases, whether the exclusions for second-degree assault and domestically related crimes are too narrow or too broad, and whether the seven-year waiting period for certain misdemeanor convictions is appropriate. Agencies responsible for implementation may also raise concerns about workload, data matching, and ensuring that only truly eligible cases are expunged.