[tomlongson]

> The group also apparently gained access to a number of government Web portals and applications, including the Joint Automated Booking System (a portal that provides law enforcement with data on any person's arrest records, regardless of whether the cases are ordered sealed by courts) and government employee personnel records

Why is it that sealed arrest records are not actually sealed?

[Wingman4l7]

I've always struggled with the concept and purpose of a 'sealed" record. It's like the justice system is trying to have its cake and eat it too -- they want to keep a record that someone went through a judicial process, but the details must not be revealed? Why not just wipe the record and replace it with some sort of generic "John Doe had a legal proceeding on date X"?

[lazaroclapp]

Doesn't 'sealed' imply that is retrievable, just not under most circumstances? As opposed to expunged. As I understand it, a court order can allow certain parties to access a 'sealed' record as part of different investigation in the future. It's just that your employer doesn't get to see the whole thing every time they run a background check on you.

Why there isn't a proper threshold cryptosystem and chain of custody of keys for sealed records? Well, that's a different question. The answer is probably along the lines of "the justice system doesn't get tech" or "the people who could demand this don't know about it or don't care enough" or even "thus far the implementation has worked ok...".

[kevin_thibedeau]

Law databases aren't much past the sophistication of Dbase. Strong access controls and encryption are hopeless.

[lazaroclapp]

Yeah, I know. Still, it is interesting how when it comes to catching suspected criminals everything is relatively high-tech: optical license plate recognition, fake cell towers, biometrics, drones, etc. Yet when it comes to protecting civil rights, any solution that is newer than the bill of rights itself is suspiciously absent.

[pc86]

Even expunged records can still be accessed by military and intelligence agencies. At a local (sometimes state) level, once an expungement order is processed the record is physically shredded, usually along with the expungement order itself. Federally the records are marked as expunged but it makes sense that if you're joining the military or applying for a job with an intelligence agency, that they should know about the court interaction, expunged or otherwise.

[AnimalMuppet]

Here's a corporate trial. To prosecute their case that a competitor stole some of their trade secrets, they have to reveal to the court what those trade secrets are. ("They stole our secret stuff, but we won't tell you what" doesn't fly in court - even SCO got burned eventually for trying it.)

But you don't want that stuff sitting in a court record that anyone can walk in off the street and ask to see. So part of the record get sealed - not available to the public. It's still available to the judge, and to the (outside) counsel for the other side, and to the appeals judge if things go that far.

And only certain details get protected. One side has to ask for it, and the other side can protest, and the judge has to weigh the protection for the side that wants it sealed against the interest of the public to know what went on. More, a redacted version is (usually?) released eventually.

[superuser2]

As far as I can tell the main purpose of sealing a criminal record is to free the subject from the employment discrimination that comes with having a criminal record. It can and will be opened again in future interactions with the government, but stops preventing private-sector employment.

[jfoutz]

Right after high school, a friend got into a lot of trouble. The judge gave him the option of joining the military or going to prison. If that record was open, the military couldn't consider him. It sucked for him, but it sucked way less than being an ex con.

[sandworm101]

The military knew. That record didn't need to be sealed. What you friend went through was most likely a diversionary program. Proceedings were stayed, and eventually dismissed, prior to him being formally charged (or convicted, depending on the exact procedure). So there is an arrest record, but not a conviction per se. The military doesn't take issue with arrests.

That said, someone in the military looked over the case and oked your friend. Someone knew. A judge cannot force the army to take someone they don't want, nor hide information from them. The army is also not a dumping ground for criminals. Someone saw value in your friend, something that the military could use. He probably did well. Most young recruits from such alternative enlistment paths work out great.

[Albright]

"Sealed" implies the record is reasonably inaccessible to the general public, but still easily accessible to law enforcement. When you are arrested, law enforcement, and especially prosecutors, will be very interested in what you have been convicted before previously, especially if your state has a "three strikes" law (where you can end up with life in prison for your third felony conviction, regardless of the seriousness of the felonies) or something similar.

[foobarian]

Clearly they forgot to put "AND NOT sealed" into the select statement that retrieves the records from the arrest records DB :-)