Title: City of Wilmington v. K.J.C.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 142, 2007
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: August 8, 2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CITY OF WILMINGTON, 
 
Aggrieved Party Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
K.J.C., 
 
Petitioner Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 142, 2007 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  CPI No. 060811165 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: May 31, 2007 
   Decided: August 8, 2007 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
This 8th day of August 2007, upon consideration of the notice to show 
cause, the appellee’s motion to dismiss, and the response thereto, it appears 
to the Court that: 
(1) 
On March 21, 2007, the City of Wilmington filed a notice 
purporting to appeal from the Family Court’s denial of the City’s motion to 
modify a prior Family Court order, which granted the petition of a City 
employee (hereinafter identified as “KJC”) to expunge his criminal arrest 
record.  The Clerk of the Court issued a notice to the City to show cause why 
the appeal should not be dismissed as moot. Thereafter, the appellee also 
 
2
filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as being moot. After considering the 
parties’ positions, we find this appeal must be dismissed. 
(2) 
The record reflects that KJC was arrested in August 2006 for 
alleged criminal conduct unrelated to his employment with the City. On 
September 21, 2006, the Family Court dismissed the criminal charges. 
Thereafter, KJC filed a petition in the Family Court to expunge his criminal 
arrest record.  That motion was granted on January 5, 2007.   The City filed 
a petition for modification of the expungement order requesting that it be 
permitted to access and review KJC’s arrest record for the limited purpose of 
conducting an internal investigation related to KJC’s employment with the 
City.  The Family Court held that the City did not have standing under 10 
Del. C. § 1025 to seek modification of the expungement order.  Moreover, 
the Family Court held that, even if the City had standing, the City had no 
substantive right to access KJC’s expunged records in this case.  
(3) 
After filing its notice of appeal, the City sent a letter to the 
Court on May 4, 2007, indicating that City was no longer pursuing 
employment-related disciplinary charges against KJC for the conduct that 
was the subject of the expungement order.  In light of this information, the 
Court issued a notice to the City to show cause why the appeal should not be 
 
3
dismissed as moot.  KJC also filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the 
grounds of mootness. 
(4) 
Ordinarily, this Court will not consider moot issues.1  The City 
contends, however, that the Court should apply the “public interest” 
exception to the mootness doctrine in this case.2  The City argues that its 
appeal should not be dismissed as moot because the issue on appeal—
whether the City, as a law enforcement agency, can modify its employee’s 
expungement order under the “employment application” exception of 10 
Del. C. § 1026—is capable of repetition while evading review and presents a 
matter of “great public interest.” 
(5) 
We disagree that the public interest exception should be applied 
in this case.  While the issue on appeal is capable of repetition, it will not 
necessarily evade review. As the City’s letter to the Court points out, it was 
the City’s own decision to withdraw the disciplinary charges against KJC, 
for reasons unrelated to the appeal, which made the issue on appeal moot.  
Accordingly, under these circumstances, we decline to apply the public 
interest exception to the mootness doctrine in this case. 
                                                 
1 Radulski v. Delaware State Hosp., 541 A.2d 562, 566 (Del. 1988). 
2 Id. (noting that the “public interest exception to the mootness doctrine is usually 
applied to issues which are ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review’”). 
 
4
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the within appeal is 
DISMISSED as moot. 
                                
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/Henry duPont Ridgely 
                                             
 
Justice