expungement hearing in Pennsylvania

2014Welfare, 535 Pa. 440 , 636 A.2d 142 (1994), the Commonwealth Court looked to the seminal administrative law decision of Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976), for guidance in assessing a due process claim for violation of an individual’s right to protect his or her reputation. 1 It applied the Mathews factors, and based thereon concluded that the adverse effects on an alleged child abuse perpetrator’s reputation and employment opportunities required that evidence presented at an expungement hearing be clear and convincing in order to maintain the summary of th

2014Welfare, 535 Pa. 440 , 636 A.2d 142 (1994), the Commonwealth Court looked to the seminal administrative law decision of Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976), for guidance in assessing a due process claim for violation of an individual’s right to protect his or her reputation. 1 It applied the Mathews factors, and based thereon concluded that the adverse effects on an alleged child abuse perpetrator’s reputation and employment opportunities required that evidence presented at an expungement hearing be clear and convincing in order to maintain the summary of th

1992In aligning the respective burdens of proof at the expungement hearing, we wrote: Id., 282 Pa.Superior Ct. at 461, 422 A.2d at 1385 .

1992In aligning the respective burdens of proof at the expungement hearing, we wrote: Id., 282 Pa.Superior Ct. at 461, 422 A.2d at 1385 .

2016Appellant also recognizes that in Commonwealth v. Magdon, 456 A.2d 194 (Pa. Super. 1983), we held that the right to due process to be heard is not abridged by denying an expungement hearing to one actually convicted or who has pled guilty (which waives the formalities of a hearing) because the convict’s trial already provided an opportunity to be heard.

1986While acknowledging a due process right to a hearing on expungement of an arrest record of someone who was not ultimately convicted, for whatever reason, of a crime, the court stated: This due process right to be heard is not abridged by denying an expungement hearing to one actually convicted of a crime because the conviction itself is based upon a hearing in which the accused was adjudged guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, or upon a plea of guilty which waives many of the formalities of such a hearing____ Magdon, supra, 310 Pa.Superior Ct. at 89, 456 A.2d at 196 .

2015Bucks County, 616 A.2d at 174 .

2015Bucks County, 616 A.2d at 174 .

2009Id. at 252 , 759 A.2d at 1271 (citing Pennsylvania State Police v. Bucks County, 150 Pa. Cmwlth. 338, 340, 615 A.2d 946, 947 (1992) *635 aff'd per curiam, 533 Pa. 324 , 623 A.2d 814 (1993)).

2007Instead, it is logical to assume that the district attorney of the county in which the original charge was filed has no interest in a proceeding wherein the individual whose record is potentially to be expunged is either 70 years old and has been free of arrest or prosecution for ten years following final release from confinement or supervision or is dead for three years. 9 Cf. Commonwealth v. J.H., 563 Pa. 248 , 759 A.2d 1269 (2000) (where the PSP argued that common pleas lacked authority to issue the underlying expungement order under Section '9122(a)(2), and our Supreme Court held that the

2002M.R.F. v. Department of Public Welfare, 141 Pa.Cmwlth. 146 , 595 A.2d 644 (1991); 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6341(c).

2002M.R.F. v. Department of Public Welfare, 141 Pa.Cmwlth. 146 , 595 A.2d 644 (1991); 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6341(c).

2001With respect to Appellant’s claim that he was unlawfully denied a hearing, the trial court opined as follows: [Appellant] has cited { Maxwell, supra ] as the primary support for his position that he is entitled to an expungement hearing.

2000Commonwealth v. Maxwell, 737 A.2d 1243 (Pa.Super.1999), was decided four days after the expungement hearing in the instant case.

1992Accord Rambo v. Commissioner, 301 Pa.Super. 135 , 447 A.2d 279 (1982) (Commonwealth has burden at expungement hearing where accused is acquitted on appeal by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court); Commonwealth v. Rose, 263 Pa.Super. 349 , 397 A.2d 1243 (1979) (Commonwealth has burden at expungement hearing where accused is acquitted by justice of the peace).

1992Accord Rambo v. Commissioner, 301 Pa.Super. 135 , 447 A.2d 279 (1982) (Commonwealth has burden at expungement hearing where accused is acquitted on appeal by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court); Commonwealth v. Rose, 263 Pa.Super. 349 , 397 A.2d 1243 (1979) (Commonwealth has burden at expungement hearing where accused is acquitted by justice of the peace).

2019Under these circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude that the passage of over twenty-two years has “rendered the ascertainment of the exact facts impossible.” A.M.M., 194 A.3d at 1118 .

2019MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED APRIL 29, 2019 Teresa Cooper appeals from the order entered April 25, 2017,1 in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, denying her petition for expungement of prior criminal charges.2 On appeal, Cooper argues the trial court erred (1) when, relying upon this Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Lutz, 788 A.2d 993 (Pa. Super. 2001), it failed to consider the equities of her expungement petition, and (2) in failing to determine whether her due process rights were violated when the Commonwealth presented no evidence at the expungement hearing.

2018A court “must consider all four factors when making a determination of finality.” Bailey, 85 A.3d at 1069 . -6- J-A10025-18 Here, the order disposed of only one claim—the expungement claim, which sought relief under Section 6111.1(g).

2015Fiore v. Department of Labor and Industry, 585 A.2d 994 , 996 n.2 (Pa. 1991). 21 Child Protective Services Law An expungement hearing, or “Fair Hearing,” determines the accuracy of information in an indicated report.

2015He did not watch Ms. Fetcho’s interview and did not opine that her interview techniques were “unduly suggestive or coercive as to infect the memory of the child.” Davis, 939 A.2d at 911 .

2014Welfare, 535 Pa. 440 , 636 A.2d 142 (1994), the Commonwealth Court looked to the seminal administrative law decision of Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976), for guidance in assessing a due process claim for violation of an individual’s right to protect his or her reputation. 1 It applied the Mathews factors, and based thereon concluded that the adverse effects on an alleged child abuse perpetrator’s reputation and employment opportunities required that evidence presented at an expungement hearing be clear and convincing in order to maintain the summary of th

2014Welfare, 535 Pa. 440 , 636 A.2d 142 (1994), the Commonwealth Court looked to the seminal administrative law decision of Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976), for guidance in assessing a due process claim for violation of an individual’s right to protect his or her reputation. 1 It applied the Mathews factors, and based thereon concluded that the adverse effects on an alleged child abuse perpetrator’s reputation and employment opportunities required that evidence presented at an expungement hearing be clear and convincing in order to maintain the summary of th

2009Id. at 252 , 759 A.2d at 1271 (citing Pennsylvania State Police v. Bucks County, 150 Pa. Cmwlth. 338, 340, 615 A.2d 946, 947 (1992) *635 aff'd per curiam, 533 Pa. 324 , 623 A.2d 814 (1993)).

2009Id. at 252 , 759 A.2d at 1271 (citing Pennsylvania State Police v. Bucks County, 150 Pa. Cmwlth. 338, 340, 615 A.2d 946, 947 (1992) *635 aff'd per curiam, 533 Pa. 324 , 623 A.2d 814 (1993)).

2009Id. at 252 , 759 A.2d at 1271 (citing Pennsylvania State Police v. Bucks County, 150 Pa. Cmwlth. 338, 340, 615 A.2d 946, 947 (1992) *635 aff'd per curiam, 533 Pa. 324 , 623 A.2d 814 (1993)).

2009Id. at 252 , 759 A.2d at 1271 (citing Pennsylvania State Police v. Bucks County, 150 Pa.Cmwlth. 338, 340 , 615 A.2d 946, 947 (1992) aff'd per curiam, 533 Pa. 324 , 623 A.2d 814 (1993)).

2007Moreover, given that Section 9122(d) requires the central repository to be notified of an expungement only after the fact, it hardly seems likely that the General Assembly intended the PSP, as opposed to the courts, to have the discretion to expunge. 10 In both Commonwealth v. Whiteford, 786 A.2d 286 (Pa.Super.2001) and Commonwealth v. Wolf, 704 A.2d 156 (Pa.Super.1997), the Superior Court implicitly recognized that a trial court can expunge conviction records if the requirements of Section 9122(b) are met.

2007Moreover, given that Section 9122(d) requires the central repository to be notified of an expungement only after the fact, it hardly seems likely that the General Assembly intended the PSP, as opposed to the courts, to have the discretion to expunge. 10 In both Commonwealth v. Whiteford, 786 A.2d 286 (Pa.Super.2001) and Commonwealth v. Wolf, 704 A.2d 156 (Pa.Super.1997), the Superior Court implicitly recognized that a trial court can expunge conviction records if the requirements of Section 9122(b) are met.

2007Instead, it is logical to assume that the district attorney of the county in which the original charge was filed has no interest in a proceeding wherein the individual whose record is potentially to be expunged is either 70 years old and has been free of arrest or prosecution for ten years following final release from confinement or supervision or is dead for three years. 9 Cf. Commonwealth v. J.H., 563 Pa. 248 , 759 A.2d 1269 (2000) (where the PSP argued that common pleas lacked authority to issue the underlying expungement order under Section '9122(a)(2), and our Supreme Court held that the