Court Opinion

ID: 9718893
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:37:16.351408+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:03.302080
License: Public Domain

NEBEKER, Associate Judge,
with whom REILLY, Chief Judge, Retired, joins, concurring:
In order that these cases be brought to a merciful end, I concur in the remand. After struggling with this problem for well over a decade, see Spock v. District of Columbia, D.C.App., 288 A.2d 14 (1971), the court has now produced a mutant offspring of the Spock decision. We have sanctioned an attempt to cause history to be rewritten by sealing public records. The extent to which this court system can go to control the federal and local law enforcement agencies in their record keeping is still open to question.1 On the brighter side, I hasten again to add that we reject any argument that the judiciary is empowered to permit one to lie about his arrest if later asked about it. No mortal can change yesterday.
Though records may be gathered and sealed when “complete,” District of Columbia v. Hudson, D.C.App., 404 A.2d 175, 182 (1979) (en banc), the sealing of public records cannot be fully effective given the fact that no court can order the arresting officer and others knowing of the arrest from publicizing it. See and compare Cox Broadcasting Co. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469, 95 S.Ct. 1029, 43 L.Ed.2d 328 (1975). The remedy extended in Spock — amplification—should be preferred and may still prove to be the most workable. The majority has preserved that remedy in today’s holding.

. See my separate statement filed in this case on the occasion of our interim opinion, District of Columbia v. Hudson, D.C.App., 404 A.2d 175, 185 (1979) (en banc).