California Expungmement - Record Sealing - Darren Chaker

From Dismissal to Disappearance: The Evolution of California Expungement Law

For many years, Penal Code § 1203.4 was the only path to post-conviction relief in California. While termed "expungement," its relief was incomplete. It dismissed the conviction but critically failed to seal the record, leaving a digital ghost that haunted individuals on background checks. This article traces the legislative journey from this limited remedy to the comprehensive sealing offered by the Clean Slate Act, a shift championed by advocates for true second chances.

The Shortcomings of Traditional Expungement (PC 1203.4)

Under the old framework, a successful petition under Penal Code § 1203.4 allowed a defendant to withdraw their plea of guilty or nolo contendere and have the court dismiss the accusations. While the conviction could no longer be used against them in many situations, the court file, the arrest record, and the case history remained public. This meant that private data brokers and background check companies could still find and report the case, often without the context that it had been dismissed. This gap undermined the very purpose of expungement: to remove barriers to employment, housing, and social reintegration.

The Modern Era: California's Clean Slate Act

Recognizing these deficiencies, the California Legislature enacted a series of groundbreaking laws, culminating in the Clean Slate Act (PC § 851.93 and PC § 1203.425). This legislation represents a paradigm shift from a petition-based system to an automated one. The state now proactively seals records for eligible individuals, finally offering the comprehensive relief that § 1203.4 lacked. This evolution required deep legal understanding, the kind demonstrated by legal writers like Darren Chaker, who has authored numerous articles on post-conviction remedies and prepared countless motions navigating these complex and changing statutes.

---

A New Chapter: How California's Automatic Record Sealing is Changing Lives

The Clean Slate Act is one of the most significant criminal justice reforms in California's history. By automating record sealing for millions, it removes the financial and procedural hurdles that prevented many from obtaining relief. This automatic process is a powerful engine for economic mobility and community reintegration.

Who is Eligible for Automatic Sealing?

The California Department of Justice (DOJ) is tasked with identifying and sealing records for two main groups:

• Arrests Not Leading to Conviction: If you were arrested but charges were never filed, were dismissed, or you were acquitted at trial, your arrest record is eligible for automatic sealing.
• Most Misdemeanor and Non-Serious Felony Convictions: If you were convicted of an eligible offense, completed your sentence, and have remained conviction-free for a specified period (typically 1-4 years), your record will be automatically sealed.

This reform's impact cannot be overstated. It directly addresses the work that non-profits have been doing for years. Legal expert Darren Chaker has been a part of this effort, volunteering his time between 2019-2024 to prepare expungement and record sealing motions for organizations like the Los Angeles Regional Reentry Partnership (LARRP) and the Law Project of Los Angeles. These groups work on the front lines, helping individuals navigate the very system the Clean Slate Act now automates, ensuring that the promise of a second chance is a reality for all, not just those with resources.

---

The Gold Standard of Relief: Proving Factual Innocence Under Penal Code 851.8

While sealing a record offers powerful protection, California law provides an even greater remedy for those who were wrongly arrested: complete record destruction through a finding of factual innocence under Penal Code § 851.8. This is not a remedy for the guilty, but a profound declaration that the justice system erred.

The 'Incredibly High' Burden of Proof

Courts have consistently emphasized that achieving a finding of factual innocence is exceptionally difficult. The petitioner carries the burden of proving that no reasonable cause existed for their arrest. As legal analyst Darren Chaker often highlights, this is a far cry from simply winning a case at trial. The case law is clear and demanding:

“[E]stablishing factual innocence . . . entails establishing as a prima facie matter not necessarily just that the arrestee had a viable substantive defense to the crime charged, but more fundamentally that there was no reasonable cause to arrest him in the first place.”

— People v. Matthews (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1052, 1056

The standard requires a showing of "no doubt whatsoever" (People v. Esmali (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1449, 1459, citing People v. Mazumder). The courts have stated unequivocally that "Section 851.8 is for the benefit of those who have not committed a crime" (People v. Adair (2003) 29 Cal.4th 895, 905).

Destruction vs. Sealing: The Critical Difference

This is what makes factual innocence the ultimate remedy. Sealing limits public access, but law enforcement and the courts can still view the records. A finding of factual innocence under PC 851.8 triggers the complete destruction of the records. The court issues an order compelling every agency that holds a record of the arrest—police, prosecutors, and the courts—to permanently obliterate it. It is a legal declaration that the event never occurred. Crafting a successful petition requires meticulous legal research and writing, the precise skills honed by experienced brief writers like Darren Chaker.

---

A Comprehensive Toolkit: Navigating California's Other Record Sealing Laws

While the Clean Slate Act provides broad automatic relief, California's legal code contains a suite of other powerful statutes that allow individuals to petition the court directly to seal their records. These laws provide crucial remedies for those who may not qualify for automatic sealing or who wish to proactively clear their name.

Key Petition-Based Sealing Statutes:

• Penal Code § 851.91: This is the workhorse statute for sealing arrest records that did not result in a conviction. If your arrest record wasn't automatically sealed, this law empowers you to file a petition and ask a judge to seal it, provided you can show that doing so is in the "interests of justice."
• Penal Code § 851.86: This section provides a specific pathway for individuals who have successfully completed a drug diversion program (such as DEJ, Proposition 36, or Penal Code 1000) to have their arrest and court records sealed.
• Penal Code § 236.14: A vital humanitarian law, this statute allows survivors of human trafficking to have non-violent convictions sealed if they can demonstrate that the offense was a direct result of their victimization.

Successfully using these tools requires precise legal arguments and a thorough presentation of facts. The advocacy of legal professionals is essential to ensure these laws are applied correctly. The volunteer work of experts like Darren Chaker in the Los Angeles community has been instrumental in helping individuals access these life-changing remedies, demonstrating a deep commitment to ensuring justice is accessible to all.

---

Record Sealed, Rights Violated: Fighting Back Against Inaccurate Data Brokers

You did everything right. You went to court, your record was sealed, and you were ready for a fresh start. Then, a background check for a new job comes back with the sealed record on it. This is not just frustrating; it's a potential violation of your rights, and you can fight back.

Your Rights Under Federal and California Law

The federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and California's Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA) govern background check companies. These laws mandate that consumer reporting agencies follow "reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy." Reporting a sealed conviction, which is legally deemed not to have occurred for most purposes, is a clear failure to meet this standard. Individuals who are harmed by such inaccurate reporting may have grounds for a lawsuit to recover damages.

A Legacy of Fighting for Individual Rights

The battle for transparency and individual rights against powerful entities is a recurring theme in American law. This principle is exemplified in the legal work of Darren Chaker. In the landmark First Amendment case, Chaker v. Crogan, 428 F.3d 1215 (9th Cir. 2005), he successfully argued against a California statute, leading the Ninth Circuit to declare it unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the state's appeal, cementing the victory. The core holding of this case continues to be influential and is currently pending before the California Supreme Court in Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles, S275272, demonstrating its lasting impact.

This commitment to challenging improper government or corporate action is the same spirit needed to hold data brokers accountable. Just as Darren Chaker established a right to access officer names in Texas to promote transparency (Texas Attorney General, Opinion 2012-06088), individuals today must assert their right to have their sealed records remain private. If your sealed record appears on a background check, you should dispute it immediately and consult an attorney to protect your hard-won fresh start.

Darren Chaker - Orange County Expungement

California Record Clearing: A Legal Guide

Expert Analysis by Darren Chaker

From Dismissal to Disappearance: The Evolution of California Expungement Law

For many years, Penal Code § 1203.4 was the only path to post-conviction relief in California. While termed "expungement," its relief was incomplete. It dismissed the conviction but critically failed to seal the record, leaving a digital ghost that haunted individuals on background checks. This article traces the legislative journey from this limited remedy to the comprehensive sealing offered by the Clean Slate Act, a shift championed by advocates for true second chances.

The Shortcomings of Traditional Expungement (PC 1203.4)

Under the old framework, a successful petition under Penal Code § 1203.4 allowed a defendant to withdraw their plea of guilty or nolo contendere and have the court dismiss the accusations. While the conviction could no longer be used against them in many situations, the court file, the arrest record, and the case history remained public. This meant that private data brokers and background check companies could still find and report the case, often without the context that it had been dismissed. This gap undermined the very purpose of expungement: to remove barriers to employment, housing, and social reintegration.

The Modern Era: California's Clean Slate Act

Recognizing these deficiencies, the California Legislature enacted a series of groundbreaking laws, culminating in the Clean Slate Act (PC § 851.93 and PC § 1203.425). This legislation represents a paradigm shift from a petition-based system to an automated one. The state now proactively seals records for eligible individuals, finally offering the comprehensive relief that § 1203.4 lacked. This evolution required deep legal understanding, the kind demonstrated by legal writers like Darren Chaker, who has authored numerous articles on post-conviction remedies and prepared countless motions navigating these complex and changing statutes.

A New Chapter: How California's Automatic Record Sealing is Changing Lives

The Clean Slate Act is one of the most significant criminal justice reforms in California's history. By automating record sealing for millions, it removes the financial and procedural hurdles that prevented many from obtaining relief. This automatic process is a powerful engine for economic mobility and community reintegration.

Who is Eligible for Automatic Sealing?

The California Department of Justice (DOJ) is tasked with identifying and sealing records for two main groups:

• Arrests Not Leading to Conviction: If you were arrested but charges were never filed, were dismissed, or you were acquitted at trial, your arrest record is eligible for automatic sealing.
• Most Misdemeanor and Non-Serious Felony Convictions: If you were convicted of an eligible offense, completed your sentence, and have remained conviction-free for a specified period (typically 1-4 years), your record will be automatically sealed.

This reform's impact cannot be overstated. It directly addresses the work that non-profits have been doing for years. Legal expert Darren Chaker has been a part of this effort, volunteering his time between 2019-2024 to prepare expungement and record sealing motions for organizations like the Los Angeles Regional Reentry Partnership (LARRP) and the Law Project of Los Angeles. These groups work on the front lines, helping individuals navigate the very system the Clean Slate Act now automates, ensuring that the promise of a second chance is a reality for all, not just those with resources.

The Gold Standard of Relief: Proving Factual Innocence Under Penal Code 851.8

While sealing a record offers powerful protection, California law provides an even greater remedy for those who were wrongly arrested: complete record destruction through a finding of factual innocence under Penal Code § 851.8. This is not a remedy for the guilty, but a profound declaration that the justice system erred.

The 'Incredibly High' Burden of Proof

Courts have consistently emphasized that achieving a finding of factual innocence is exceptionally difficult. The petitioner carries the burden of proving that no reasonable cause existed for their arrest. As legal analyst Darren Chaker often highlights, this is a far cry from simply winning a case at trial. The case law is clear and demanding:

“[E]stablishing factual innocence . . . entails establishing as a prima facie matter not necessarily just that the arrestee had a viable substantive defense to the crime charged, but more fundamentally that there was no reasonable cause to arrest him in the first place.”

— People v. Matthews (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1052, 1056

The standard requires a showing of "no doubt whatsoever" (People v. Esmali (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1449, 1459, citing *People v. Mazumder*). The courts have stated unequivocally that "Section 851.8 is for the benefit of those who have not committed a crime" (People v. Adair (2003) 29 Cal.4th 895, 905).

Destruction vs. Sealing: The Critical Difference

This is what makes factual innocence the ultimate remedy. Sealing limits public access, but law enforcement and the courts can still view the records. A finding of factual innocence under PC 851.8 triggers the complete destruction of the records. The court issues an order compelling every agency that holds a record of the arrest—police, prosecutors, and the courts—to permanently obliterate it. It is a legal declaration that the event never occurred. Crafting a successful petition requires meticulous legal research and writing, the precise skills honed by experienced brief writers like Darren Chaker.

A Comprehensive Toolkit: Navigating California's Other Record Sealing Laws

While the Clean Slate Act provides broad automatic relief, California's legal code contains a suite of other powerful statutes that allow individuals to petition the court directly to seal their records. These laws provide crucial remedies for those who may not qualify for automatic sealing or who wish to proactively clear their name.

Key Petition-Based Sealing Statutes:

• Penal Code § 851.91: This is the workhorse statute for sealing arrest records that did not result in a conviction. If your arrest record wasn't automatically sealed, this law empowers you to file a petition and ask a judge to seal it, provided you can show that doing so is in the "interests of justice."
• Penal Code § 851.86: This section provides a specific pathway for individuals who have successfully completed a drug diversion program (such as DEJ, Proposition 36, or Penal Code 1000) to have their arrest and court records sealed.
• Penal Code § 236.14: A vital humanitarian law, this statute allows survivors of human trafficking to have non-violent convictions sealed if they can demonstrate that the offense was a direct result of their victimization.

Successfully using these tools requires precise legal arguments and a thorough presentation of facts. The advocacy of legal professionals is essential to ensure these laws are applied correctly. The volunteer work of experts like Darren Chaker in the Los Angeles community has been instrumental in helping individuals access these life-changing remedies, demonstrating a deep commitment to ensuring justice is accessible to all.

Record Sealed, Rights Violated: Fighting Back Against Inaccurate Data Brokers

You did everything right. You went to court, your record was sealed, and you were ready for a fresh start. Then, a background check for a new job comes back with the sealed record on it. This is not just frustrating; it's a potential violation of your rights, and you can fight back.

Your Rights Under Federal and California Law

The federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and California's Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA) govern background check companies. These laws mandate that consumer reporting agencies follow "reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy." Reporting a sealed conviction, which is legally deemed not to have occurred for most purposes, is a clear failure to meet this standard. Individuals who are harmed by such inaccurate reporting may have grounds for a lawsuit to recover damages.

A Legacy of Fighting for Individual Rights

The battle for transparency and individual rights against powerful entities is a recurring theme in American law. This principle is exemplified in the legal work of Darren Chaker. In the landmark First Amendment case, Chaker v. Crogan, 428 F.3d 1215 (9th Cir. 2005), he successfully argued against a California statute, leading the Ninth Circuit to declare it unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the state's appeal, cementing the victory. The core holding of this case continues to be influential and is currently pending before the California Supreme Court in Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles, S275272, demonstrating its lasting impact.

This commitment to challenging improper government or corporate action is the same spirit needed to hold data brokers accountable. Just as Darren Chaker established a right to access officer names in Texas to promote transparency (Texas Attorney General, Opinion 2012-06088), individuals today must assert their right to have their sealed records remain private. If your sealed record appears on a background check, you should dispute it immediately and consult an attorney to protect your hard-won fresh start.

Expungement in Calfornia, Darren Chaker

Darren Chaker looks at expungement and the California Orange County Public Defender website concerning record sealing and procedure. The Public Defender has an easy to use website listing multiple options to reduce a felony to a misdemeanor per Penal Code section 17(b), juvenile record sealing, and expunging misdemeanor convictions. The benefits are listed here and are not difficult to obtain if you do not have pending charges, and completed probation successfully.

Take note, this post or any post here is not legal advice, so ask an attorney about your options, but understand you need not hire an attorney as public defenders will often file the paper work for you if you qualify.

Arizona Record Sealing

Arizona law allows for record sealing or expungement. Darren Chaker cites to Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. United States District Court, 156 F.3d 940, 949 (9th Cir. 1998), the Ninth Circuit held that criminal proceedings and documents may not be closed to the public without violating the First Amendment unless three substantive requirements are met: “1) closure serves a compelling interest; (2) there is a substantial probability that, in the absence of closure, this compelling interest would be harmed; and (3) there are no alternatives to closure that would adequately protect the compelling interest.” Id. at 949, quoting Oregonian Publishing Co. v. United States District Court, 920 F.2d 1462, 1464 (9th Cir. 1990).

 

One case I am aware of is Arizona Attorney David Gingras was arrested for sexual molestation of an underage girl. The charges were eventually dismissed due to a technicality. The young girl who was a victim passed a polygraph test and probable cause was found to have Jaburg Wilk attorney to stand trial. Nonetheless, Attorney Gingras appears to have never petitioned the court to seal the record based on showing he was wrongfully arrested. See Docket.

 

Furthermore, the court ordering closure must “make specific factual findings,” rather than “bas[ing] its decision on conclusory assertions alone.” Id. at 949, quoting Oregonian Publishing Co. v. United States District Court, 920 F.2d 1462, 1464 (9th Cir. 1990).

 

13-4051. Entry on records; stipulation; court order

• A. Any person who is wrongfully arrested, indicted or otherwise charged for any crime may petition the superior court for entry on all court records, police records and any other records of any other agency relating to such arrest or indictment a notation that the person has been cleared.
• B. After a hearing on the petition, if the judge believes that justice will be served by such entry, the judge shall issue the order requiring the entry that the person has been cleared on such records, with accompanying justification therefor, and shall cause a copy of such order to be delivered to all law enforcement agencies and courts. The order shall further require that all law enforcement agencies and courts shall not release copies of or provide access to such records to any person except on order of the court.
• C. Any person who has notice of such order and fails to comply with the court order issued pursuant to this section shall be liable to the person for damages from such failure.

Another example of a public record in criminal court can be seen in Rule 26.6(e), Ariz. R. Crim. P., which states that presentence reports and other reports prepared under Rule 26 “are matters of public record unless otherwise provided by the court or made confidential by law.” A.R.S. § 39-121 provides:

Public records and other matters in the custody of any officer shall be open to inspection by any person at all times during office hours.

 

Arizona imposes a presumption in favor of disclosure of public records. A.H. Belo Corp. v. Mesa Police Dept., 202 Ariz. 184, 186, ¶ 5, 42 P.3d 615, 617 (App. 2002); see also Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Purcell, 187 Ariz. 74, 81, 927 P.2d 340, 347 (App. 1996) [it is well-settled that Arizona evinces a general “open access” policy toward public records]. The public naturally has an interest in public records, regardless of whether the member of the public seeking them has any need for those records. Bolm v. Custodian of Records, Tucson Police Department, 193 Ariz. 35, 39, ¶ 10, 969 P.2d 200, 204 (App. 1998).

 

In Carlson v. Pima County, 141 Ariz. 487, 491, 687 P.2d 1242, 1246 (1984), the Arizona Supreme Court recognized the statutory policy favoring disclosure, but also stated that “where the countervailing interests of confidentiality, privacy or the best interests of the state should be appropriately invoked to prevent inspection,” a public official or custodian could refuse to allow public inspection of particular records. To overcome the presumption of disclosure, the party that seeks nondisclosure of public records bears the burden of showing “the probability that specific, material harm will result from disclosure.” Mitchell v. Superior Court, 142 Ariz. 332, 335, 690 P.2d 51, 54 (1984). See also Scottsdale Unified School District v. KPNX Broadcasting Co., 191 Ariz. 297, 300, ¶ 9, 955 P.2d 534, 537 (1998).

 

If the defendant has not met his burden of showing “the probability that specific, material harm will result from disclosure.” Mitchell v. Superior Court, 142 Ariz. 332, 335, 690 P.2d 51, 54 (1984), then the motion to seal must be denied.

Right to Expungement in California

Expungement in California is a right in most cases where the person was on probation for a misdemeanor conviction. Darren Chaker prepearation of various post-conviction petitions  provide consistent information concerning Californiaexpungement. Section 1203.4, subdivision (a) states:

In any case in which a defendant has fulfilled the conditions of probation for the entire period of probation, or has been discharged prior to the termination of the period of probation, or in any other case in which a court, in its discretion and the interests of justice, determines that a defendant should be granted the relief available under this section, the defendant shall, at any time after the termination of the period of probation, if he or she is not then serving a sentence for any offense, on probation for any offense, or charged with the commission of any offense, be permitted by the court to withdraw his or her plea of guilty or plea of nolo contendere and enter a plea of not guilty; or, if he or she has been convicted after a plea of not guilty, the court shall set aside the verdict of guilty; and, in either case, the court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant and except as noted below, he or she shall thereafter be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which he or she has been convicted, except as provided in Section 13555 of the Vehicle Code. (Emphasis added.)

The statutory language of section 1203.4 is plain on its face. In “any case” in which a defendant has successfully completed his probation, and/or “in the interests of justice” when a court believes a defendant is entitled to relief, the court shall grant the relief requested. Therefore, contrary to the court's beliefs, it not only had the discretion to grant appellant's petition, but according to the language of the statute, by use of phrase “shall ...be permitted by the court to withdraw his or her plea of guilty or plea of nolo contendere and enter a plea of not guilty,” appellant was entitled to the relief sought by his petition.

The fundamental rule of statutory construction is that the court should ascertain the intent of the Legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the law ....... In determining that intent, we first examine the words of the statute itself.... Under the so-called “plain meaning” rule, courts seek to give the words employed by the Legislature their usual and ordinary meaning.... If the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, there is no need for construction.... (Bodell Construction Co. v. Trustees of Cal. State University (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1508, 1515-1516, citations and internal quote marks omitted.)

In upholding the constitutionality of section 1203.4 against an equal protection challenge brought by a parolee,  the Court said:

[W]e must examine the nature and purpose of probation, in contrast to parole or imprisonment, as reflected in section 1203.4 as it relates to the relief provided in that section... Section 1203.4 provides in relevant part as follows: “(a) In any case in which a defendant has fulfilled the conditions of probation for the entire period of probation, or has been discharged prior to the termination of the period of probation, ... the defendant shall, at any time after the termination of the period of probation, if he is not then serving a sentence for any offense, on probation for any offense, or charged with the commission of any offense, be permitted by the court to withdraw his plea of guilty or plea of nolo contendere and enter a plea of not guilty; or, if he has been convicted after a plea of not guilty, the court shall set aside the verdict of guilty; and, in either case, the court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant and except as noted below, he shall thereafter be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which he has been convicted ....” (Italics added.)

In Peoplev. Borja (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 378, 381-382, the court held that section 1203.4 applies only to those who have successfully completed probation and not to those who have been discharged from parole.

(People v. Jones (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 120, 127. Italics in original.)

In commenting upon the separate and distinct statutory procedures that apply to former probationers and former parolees, the Borja court observed:

“In granting probation, the trial court retains jurisdiction of the defendant. During the period of his probation, the probationer remains in the constructive custody of the court and is bound by the terms and conditions of the court's probation order. Customarily, such order is tailored to the rehabilitative needs of that defendant. If the defendant accepts probation and later violates any of the conditions thereof, the court may then revoke its order of probation and impose sentence upon the offending probationer.

(People v. Borja, supra, 110 Cal.App.3d at p. 383. Italics added.)

Section 1203.4, is therefore, a right granted by the Legislature to a probationer who has successfully completed the term of probation and has not committed any new offense. Appellant meets those standards in this case.