Court Opinion

ID: 9792502
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:30:12.774666+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:33:54.082128
License: Public Domain

HOWE, Associate Chief Justice
(concurring):
I concur. Section 77-18-2(5)(a) seals the lips of the police officers and the paid informant since they are employees of an “agency” which has been furnished a copy of the expungement order. The toxicology report, which has been sealed as part of the record, is likewise unavailable as evidence. However, as I pointed out in my dissenting opinion in Doe v. Utah Department of Public Safety, 782 P.2d at 495, subsection (3) only gives a very limited privilege from answering concerning arrest or conviction. That privilege is when “an inquiring employer” asks concerning the arrest or conviction. Since the Board of Education is a certifying agency, and not an “employer” with regard to plaintiff Ambus, he has no privilege to answer “as though the arrest or conviction did not occur.”