Opinion ID: 1265522
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Expungement Pursuant to 6 AAC 60.100(a)

Text: Journey also cites 6 Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 60.100(a) to support his expungement claim. It states in pertinent part: PURGING OF CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORD INFORMATION. (a) Criminal history record information collected, stored, processed or disseminated within the Alaska justice information system must be purged as follows: ... . (2) Upon final disposition of an arrest or criminal proceeding in favor of the arrestee, all criminal history record information collected and stored as a result of that arrest or proceeding must be immediately closed, except fingerprint classifications and medical information under 6 AAC 60.110. (3) Criminal history record information closed under ... (2) of this subsection must be expunged no sooner than 60 and no later than 90 days after closure. Journey argues that successful completion of a suspended imposition of sentence is a disposition in his favor, entitling him to expungement under 6 AAC 60.100(a). [23] On the merits, Journey's SIS is not a disposition in his favor pursuant to 6 AAC 60.100. Journey's case is similar to City of St. Paul v. Froysland [24] where the Minnesota Supreme Court denied an expunction request. After her arrest, Froysland pled guilty to a charge of disorderly conduct, and received a six-month stay of imposition of sentence pursuant to Minnesota's probation statute. [25] The trial court instructed the defendant that if she did not get into any more trouble, the charge would be dismissed, and that after dismissal she would be able to state that she had not been convicted of the offense. After the six-month period, the trial court struck the guilty plea, vacated the conviction, and dismissed the charge. However, when Froysland attempted to obtain the return of criminal identification data under a statute that provided for such return [u]pon the determination of all pending criminal actions or proceedings in favor of the arrested person, [26] the City of St. Paul denied her request. [27] The trial court upheld the denial. To this effect, the trial court reasoned that the statute providing for the return of criminal identification records was intended to benefit individuals who either were acquitted of an offense or were released without further proceedings, and that in the absence of legislative action extending the statute's protections to individuals who have admitted guilt, return of the records would infringe upon the record-keeping functions of the executive branch. [28] The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision. [29] Thus, whether or not applicable, we conclude that Journey is not entitled to expungement per 6 AAC 60.100.