AN ACT to create and enact a new section to chapter 12-60.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to closing certain criminal records; and to amend and reenact sections 12-60.1-01 and 12-60.1-02 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to closed records and grounds to file a petition to seal a criminal record.
HB 1166 revises North Dakota’s laws on sealing and closing criminal records. It updates definitions in Chapter 12-60.1, clarifying what counts as a “closed” record, what constitutes a “criminal record,” and how terms such as “nonconviction” and “seal” are used. The bill also restates who may petition to seal a criminal record: a person with a misdemeanor conviction after three crime-free years, a person with a felony conviction after five crime-free years, or a person who received an unconditional gubernatorial pardon.
The bill adds a new process for nonconviction cases. If a court enters an order of nonconviction on or after August 1, 2025, the court record must be closed automatically after 61 days. For nonconviction cases resolved before that date, the defendant may petition the court to close the record, and the court must do so within 10 days if the statutory requirements are met. The bill also bars filing fees for these petitions and excludes certain cases, including dismissals tied to plea agreements, findings of incompetence to proceed, verdicts of not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility, and appealed cases.
The bill’s impact is to expand and standardize access to record closure for people whose cases did not result in conviction, while preserving existing limits on sealing records for more serious offenses. It affects court records and prosecution records under Chapter 12-60.1, but does not change criminal history record information maintained separately under other statutes. It also preserves exclusions for violent or intimidation-related felonies during firearm-disqualification periods and for offenses requiring sex-offender registration.
The general sentiment around HB 1166 appears strongly favorable. It passed the House overwhelmingly, 92-1, and the Senate unanimously, 46-0, indicating broad bipartisan support and little public legislative resistance. The bill’s structure suggests a consensus around reducing barriers for people with dismissed or acquitted cases and making record closure more automatic and accessible.
The main points of contention, to the extent they appear in the text and vote pattern, are limited. The bill still draws lines around which records can be sealed and which offenses remain excluded, especially violent offenses, registration offenses, and cases resolved through plea bargains or appellate proceedings. Those carveouts reflect a balance between privacy/reentry interests and public-safety or procedural concerns, but the near-unanimous votes suggest those limits were not a major source of dispute.
HB 1166 amends Chapter 12-60.1 of the North Dakota Century Code to expand automatic and petition-based closure of certain criminal court records, especially nonconviction records, while preserving existing sealing rules for misdemeanor and felony convictions and excluding specified offenses and case types. It affects court and prosecution records, court clerks, judges, defendants, prosecutors, and criminal justice agencies, but does not alter separate criminal history data systems.
The bill was received very positively in the Legislature, passing the House 92-1 and the Senate 46-0. The vote totals indicate broad bipartisan agreement and little opposition, suggesting the measure was viewed as a practical record-relief and criminal-justice administration bill rather than a controversial policy change.
The bill’s only notable tensions are in its carveouts and eligibility limits. It excludes violent or intimidation-related felonies during firearm-disqualification periods, offenses requiring sex-offender registration, plea-bargain dismissals tied to another conviction, incompetency findings, lack-of-criminal-responsibility verdicts, and appealed cases. Those exclusions reflect a compromise between record-clearing and public-safety/procedural concerns, but the overwhelming votes suggest no major organized opposition emerged.