The flipping of the calendar to a new year is traditionally a time when we speak of starting with a clean slate. The “clean slate” concept is one that Connecticut has endorsed across a number of statutes.
Photo by Taylor Lauren Barker
Attorney Matthew Maddox of New Canaan
Those of us who work in the criminal justice system refer to these statutes as “diversionary programs”. These are programs that may require class attendance, community service work and compliance with other conditions and lead to the promised land of criminal defense: dismissal.
But, what happens to the other punishment? The one that our Legislature didn’t impose and in most instances didn’t even anticipate, conviction by Internet?
After dismissal in the Superior Court, the file is supposed to be stripped. In fact, our office often moves for erasure and return of fingerprints after a dismissal has entered. On top of that, Connecticut goes the extra mile and says that the person who has done what was asked and has received a dismissal, is legally permitted to state that they were never arrested. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-142a (a).
However, the law doesn’t require the media to remove articles and references to the arrest and so far, our Appellate Court has sided with the media on First Amendment and other grounds. They don’t have to remove articles or links and they don’t have to yank the cog from the search engines.
When one of our people has had a case dismissed and they are hamstrung by an article or post about the arrest, our practice is to write and call media editors and owners. We cite to the diversionary statute, the dismissal statute and fundamental issues of fairness, goodness and doing what we think is the right thing. Sometimes the editors and owners agree. Sometimes they don’t.
The law needs to catch up to Internet reality. The First Amendment and our Freedom of Information laws are adequately balanced against a social-legal policy for first-time offenders if media is permitted to maintain Internet coverage of an arrest for a brief, finite period after dismissal.
If we truly believe as a state that people deserve a second chance, and our statutes say that we do, then Connecticut should ensure that the second chance is real.
______________
Attorney Matthew Maddox has offices in New Canaan. His blog appears on his law firm website and is available by email.
Editor’s note: The First Amendment prevents and will likely always prevent the government from telling news organizations that they must take down a news article from the Internet because someone has had the charges dropped. We strongly believe that’s as it should be, but Matthew Maddox is entitled to his own opinion. At Darienite.com we have removed and will continue to remove some articles (or names from articles, and then repost the articles under another Web address) when charges are dismissed and we are made aware of it, and we won’t use names of arrestees at all in a number of circumstances.
Related
As of Jan. 1, 2017, Connecticut “banned the box” — making it illegal for nearly all employers to ask about an applicant’s prior arrests, criminal charges or convictions on an initial employment application.
See also these related articles:
- Connecticut Becomes the Third Jurisdiction in 2016 to “Ban the Box (article from Littler Mendelson P.C.)
- 3 Major Problems with Connecticut’s New Ban the Box Legislation – No More Criminal Arrest History Questions on Connecticut Job Applications (article from the Law Offices of Mark Sherman website)
- The State of Connecticut “Bans the Box” (Lexicology website of Globe Media Services)