Opinion ID: 2348609
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sealing an Arrest Record

Text: Superior Court criminal procedure rules state the guidelines for granting a motion to seal an arrest record as follows: If, based upon pleadings or following a hearing, the Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the offense for which the movant was arrested did not occur or that the movant did not commit the offense, the Court shall order the movant's arrest records retrieved and sealed . . . . Super. Ct.Crim. R. 118(e) (2001). This rule essentially codifies the rule laid down in District of Columbia v. Hudson, 404 A.2d 175 (D.C.1979) (en banc) ( Hudson I ), and amplified in District of Columbia v. Hudson, 449 A.2d 294 (D.C.1982) (en banc) ( Hudson II ). As the government points out, Davis has never met this standard. [2] She committed the offense for which she was arrested, could not show otherwise, and except for a bald assertion in her original motion that there is clear and convincing evidence that no crime was committed by Ms. Davis, she does not try to show that she meets the standard set out in Rule 118. Rather, in opposing this appeal, Davis relies on Rule 47-I, which sets forth the general timing requirements for filing opposing points and authorities to any motion. The last sentence of the rule states, [i]f the opposition is not filed within the prescribed time, the Court may treat the motion as conceded. Super. Ct.Crim. R. 47-I(c) (2001).