An Act to Automatically Seal Criminal History Record Information for Certain Crimes
LD 1911 would create an automatic sealing process for certain criminal history record information in Maine, allowing qualifying convictions to be sealed without the person first filing a petition. The bill directs the Administrative Office of the Courts to regularly review electronic case records, identify records that meet the eligibility rules, and send lists to the appropriate courts, which would then issue sealing orders. The Bureau of Identification would update its records after receiving notice, and sealed information would be subject to the state’s limits on dissemination.
The bill defines which convictions are eligible and sets waiting periods before sealing can occur. In general, Class D and Class E convictions may be sealed after 5 years, while Class A, B, and C convictions may be sealed after 10 years if the sentence has been fully completed, including supervised release, and the person has remained crime-free and has no pending charges. The bill excludes a range of offenses, including many sexual offenses, certain violent and domestic violence-related crimes, protective order violations, animal cruelty, firearm-related crimes, and some drug and marijuana offenses, while also preserving the existing ability to seek sealing by motion in court.
The bill would amend Maine’s criminal history record information laws and court administration procedures to add an automatic sealing mechanism for eligible convictions. It would require the judicial branch, the Bureau of State Police, the Department of Corrections, and other criminal justice agencies to cooperate in identifying and processing records for sealing, and it would change how sealed records are maintained and disclosed under Title 15. It also affects the legal obligations of people with sealed convictions by allowing them to deny the existence of the conviction in many contexts without penalty, while preserving disclosure duties in criminal justice settings and under oath in later prosecutions.
The voting history suggests the bill had meaningful but not overwhelming support, passing both chambers by relatively close margins and later receiving a veto-related reconsideration vote. That pattern indicates the proposal was broadly supported as a criminal justice reform measure, but not unanimously, with substantial opposition remaining. The lack of committee transcript material limits direct insight into debate, but the recorded votes show the bill was controversial enough to draw significant dissent at each stage.
The main points of contention likely centered on the scope of automatic relief and the types of offenses excluded or included. Supporters appear to have favored reducing barriers to record clearing and making the process more accessible for people with older, lower-level convictions, while opponents likely raised concerns about public safety, transparency, and whether certain offenses should be eligible for automatic sealing. Particular sensitivity appears to surround domestic violence-related offenses, stalking, protective order violations, firearm-related crimes, and drug offenses, as the bill draws detailed lines around those categories and excludes many of them from automatic relief.