An Act to Permit Sealing Criminal History Record Information of Victims of Sex Trafficking or Sexual Exploitation
Summary
LD 1871 creates a new pathway for people whose criminal convictions were substantially caused by sex trafficking or sexual exploitation to petition the court to seal the related criminal history record information. The bill defines “sex trafficking” and “sexual exploitation,” and allows a motion to be filed at any time after conviction if the person proves both victim status and that the offense was a substantial result of that victimization. It also makes clear that official documentation is not required to prove victim status, though such documentation can create a presumption in the person’s favor.
The bill also adds a separate chapter governing business screening services that collect and disseminate criminal history record information for a fee. Those services would be required to keep records complete and accurate, investigate disputes without charge, correct inaccurate records, delete records that have been sealed or pardoned, and provide notice when disseminating older records that may include information that has since been sealed. The bill creates enforcement provisions tied to the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act and authorizes damages, costs, attorney’s fees, and jurisdiction in Maine courts for violations.
Impact
LD 1871 amends Maine’s criminal record sealing laws in Title 15 by adding section 2262-B, which expands eligibility for sealing to convictions linked to sex trafficking or sexual exploitation, and by modifying related motion, hearing, and unsealing procedures. It also narrows or adjusts some existing sealing provisions, including changes to eligibility language for certain convictions and the treatment of later convictions, while exempting records sealed under the new victim-based provision from automatic unsealing rules. In addition, the bill adds a new Title 10 chapter regulating private background-check and business screening services’ handling of criminal history record information, imposing accuracy, correction, deletion, notice, and liability requirements.
Sentiment
The voting history suggests the bill had meaningful but not unanimous support. The committee report to pass as amended was approved 22-12, and the House enactment vote passed 89-58, indicating a clear majority in favor but substantial opposition. The overall sentiment appears supportive of providing relief to trafficking and exploitation survivors, while also emphasizing record accuracy and consumer protections in criminal background screening.
Contention
The main points of contention likely center on how broadly the sealing remedy should extend and how much proof should be required to show that a conviction was substantially caused by sex trafficking or sexual exploitation. The bill reduces the need for formal documentation and allows other evidence, which may have raised concerns about evidentiary standards and administrative burden. Another likely issue is the new liability framework for business screening services, including required record updates, dispute investigations, and penalties, which could be viewed as imposing additional compliance costs on private background-check companies.