Prior to the recent amendment, the only circumstances in which a person convicted of a class B felony could accomplish expungement was in the case of a conviction for Possession or Delivery of Marijuana.  All other convictions for class B felonies were disqualified from eligibility for expungement.

Thanks to the latest amendment to Oregon’s Expungement Law, defendants convicted of class B non-person felonies such as Possession of Schedule I Controlled Substances, Delivery of Schedule II Controlled Substances, and Aggravated Theft in the First Degree, may now qualify for expungement under certain circumstances.  The principal difference in the eligibility requirements for these crimes is that a person seeking to expunge a class B felony must satisfy a 20-year waiting period from the date of the conviction, and the person must not have had any subsequent criminal convictions or arrests.

Clearly, the eligibility requirements which apply to the expungement of class B felonies are far more exacting than the eligibility requirements for other crimes.  A person convicted of a class C felony or a misdemeanor only has to satisfy a waiting period of as little as 3 years from the date of the conviction, and must not have had any other conviction (excluding a traffic violation) within the 10 years prior to filing the expungement motion.

This being said, it is indeed a positive sign that the Oregon Legislature has opened up the eligibility, even in a small way, for persons who have been convicted of a class B felony.  Hopefully, the next session of the Legislature will build on the latest legislation and open up the eligibility even further for individuals who do not qualify for expungement under current law.

If you believe that Oregon’s Expungement Law should be expanded to cover persons who currently do not qualify, you should contact your local elected officials.  The Legislature has the power to expand the scope of Oregon’s Expungement Law, and if enough people show interest in such reform, we might accomplish further progress.

If you or anyone you know is interested in legal representation for a possible expungement, please contact our office.  We are always glad to help.

One example includes HB2103, which prohibits any person who enters the DUII Diversion Program on or after June 23, 2011, from using alcohol except for purposes of religious sacrament while in Diversion.

Another example is HB3075, which requires any individual who enters the DUII Diversion Program on or after January 1, 2012, to install an ignition interlock device (IID) as a condition of participating in Diversion.

The only lightening up of consequences for the crime of DUII is found in HB2702, which prohibits the court from denying a petition to enter the DUII Diversion Program on the ground that the applicant is in active military service.

We have helped many clients facing charges of DUII.  Any person who is facing a charge of Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants (DUII) should consult a qualified attorney immediately.  There is much that an attorney can do for a person facing a charge of DUII.

There are also bills that propose reclassifying certain drug crimes, which will impact on expungement law and practice.

Relevant bills include HB 2673, HB 2674, HB 2675, and HB 2698.

There is no guarantee that Oregon’s Expungement Law will continue in its current form.

Anyone who qualifies for expungement under current law should proceed with seeking expungement immediately.

Year in, year out, the most frequent type of matter handled in our law office is a charge of Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants (DUII). When a person gets a charge of DUII, there is often a feeling of hopelessness, anger, and frustration. However, DUII’s can be defended successfully.

Proactive and resourceful advocacy on behalf of client paved the way to the State’s dismissal of our client’s DUII charge.

Client W was discovered in his truck, parked off the side of a roadway, sound asleep. He was several hundred miles from home, and appeared intoxicated to the police officer. He made incriminating statements, and failed the field sobriety tests. I challenged the client’s suspension pursuant to Oregon’s Implied Consent law, and was able to lay the groundwork for a successful defense at trial. Indeed, the work that I did at the client’s administrative hearing was instrumental in enabling me to persuade the District Attorney to dismiss the criminal charge without going to trial.

The police thought our client was intoxicated, but we were able to demonstrate that the client was suffering from effects of a brain injury.

Client B was pulled over for traffic infractions, and was prosecuted for DUII. The work I did at the client’s Implied Consent suspension hearing enabled me to lay a foundation for a successful defense at trial. At trial, I established that the client’s unsteadiness on his feet and his slurred speech was due to a brain injury which the client sustained in a motor vehicle accident, and not intoxication. Our efforts were rewarded with a Not Guilty Verdict.

The police responded to a complaint of our client driving recklessly, and discovered the client was apparently intoxicated. We won the client’s case.

Client D was arrested because of unsafe driving in a park. When apprehended by the police, he failed field sobriety tests and refused a breath test. I was able to persuade the jury that there was reasonable doubt concerning the client’s condition at the time he was driving, because there was evidence that the client had been drinking beer between the time he ceased driving and was apprehended by the police. The jury found my client Not Guilty.

Police jumped to conclusions about client driving while drugged. Aggressive cross examination revealed that the officer failed to follow procedures.

Client G was pulled over for unsafe driving. The police found drug paraphernalia in his vehicle and white powder on his nose, suggestive that the client had recently ingested cocaine. The client refused field sobriety tests. The police officer was highly skilled and experienced in conducting investigations for drug-impaired driving, and was even an instructor in that field. After reviewing the police reports prior to this trial, my paralegal told me that, if I won this client’s case, I was truly an outstanding defense attorney. I used the officer’s training materials against the officer at trial, and demonstrated that the officer had failed to follow the standard procedures. My work on this client’s behalf resulted in a verdict of Not Guilty on the charges of Driving Under the Influence, as well as the drug possession charges.

Police stopped our client for running a flashing red light. We established that there was no such signal. We won Motion to Suppress. Case dismissed!

Client S faced charges of Reckless Driving and DUII, based on the police officer’s allegation that he had failed to stop at a flashing red light. The client blew three times the legal limit on the breath test. I challenged the police officer’s conduct at the time of the stopping of my client, and demonstrated that the officer was incorrect about certain key facts in the case. Using evidence from the city traffic engineer, I demonstrated that there was no flashing red light at the intersection in question. The judge granted my Motion to Suppress evidence, and the entire case was thrown out.

Proactive and aggressive advocacy on our client’s behalf at the Implied Consent hearing resulted in dismissal of the client’s criminal charge.

Client V was arrested in his home on suspicion of DUII. The arrest was based on an anonymous tip on the part of another motorist, who phoned in a complaint to the police. When the police arrived at the client’s home, they entered the home in violation of the client’s Constitutional rights. Based on the testimony at the client’s Implied Consent hearing, I persuaded the prosecuting attorney to dismiss the case.

Police officer erroneously concluded that client was intoxicated. We established that language barriers prevented adequate communication. Not Guilty!

Client R was from a foreign country, and spoke little English. When he was apprehended by the police, he requested an interpreter, but the officer refused to get one. At trial, the police claimed that the client had made significant driving errors, had failed the field sobriety tests, and had refused the breath test. I persuaded the judge that my client’s conduct and the police observations resulted from a difficulty in communicating due to the language difference, and my client was found Not Guilty.

Police officer pulled over our client, who exhibited signs of intoxication. In reality, the client had worked around chemicals all day. Not guilty!

Client M was apprehended based on driving infractions and was prosecuted for DUII. He failed the field sobriety tests and refused a breath test. At trial I demonstrated that the client’s condition was not based on intoxication, but resulted from the client being tired from working all day. I also demonstrated that his dizziness and poor balance resulted from working around toxic chemicals at his workplace. Further, I established that the client’s slurred speech and confusion which was exhibited to the police officer resulted from a language barrier, arising from the client not being a native English speaker. The jury rewarded my defense of this client with a Not Guilty verdict.

Police failed to follow all steps required by DRE protocols. Result: DUII charges dismissed!

Two clients were arrested, in separate counties, and were prosecuted on suspicion of DUII. They committed traffic infractions, and exhibited signs of intoxication. The State alleged they were under the influence of marijuana. I demonstrated that the police officers had failed to take all the investigative steps necessary to establish a foundation for the admission of scientific evidence, and both cases were dismissed.

Client appeared to be intoxicated. In reality, client was suffering from a diabetic reaction. Blood sugar level made client seem drunk. Not guilty!

Client A was arrested for dangerous driving. He failed the field sobriety tests, and refused a breath test. At trial, the police officer testified that the client appeared heavily intoxicated. I established that the client’s apparent intoxication was actually due to his diabetic-related reaction to a blood sugar imbalance. The jury found my client Not Guilty.

Aggressive cross examination of the arresting officer can reveal inconsistencies and flaws in the investigation. Good lawyering can lead to dismissal!

Client C was prosecuted for DUII. I questioned the police officer relentlessly at the trial, pointing out the numerous errors that the officer had made in his investigation of the matter. The jury could not agree on a verdict, so the judge declared a mistrial. The case was scheduled for a retrial. On the day of trial, the officer refused to appear in court, evidently because he did not want to be subjected to a second grilling. Case dismissed!

Political interest groups are known for advancing the personal interests of their members.  Thus, the NRA fights to preserve and protect the Constitutional right of Americans to keep and bear arms.  The AMA and ADA seek to advance the economic interests of doctors and dentists.  The NEA can be relied on to advance the interests of teachers.

Against this backdrop, I would like to commend an organization that actually works contrary to the private economic interests of its members, in the pursuit of justice.

The organization I refer to is the Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, an organization of attorneys and others who devote their career toward the defense of persons who are accused of crimes.

Of course, OCDLA provides direct service to its members in its sponsorship of high quality seminars and its publication of excellent legal materials that are used by attorneys, investigators, paralegals and others who work in the criminal defense field.  But that is not the focus of this article.

What is noteworthy about this organization is that, in its public advocacy activities, OCDLA has been a reliable advocate for restraint in sentencing policy.  OCDLA has established a presence at the Oregon Legislature which is respected by Democrats and Republicans alike.  Whenever there are debates on issues pertaining to sentencing policy, OCDLA can be depended upon to oppose harsh mandatory minimum sentencing schemes that have served to drastically increase Oregon’s prison population.

Since 1995, with the advent of Ballot Measure 11, Oregon has embarked on a costly prison expansion spree.  Hundreds of millions of dollars have been diverted from education and human services toward the incarceration of an ever expanding prison population.  Even as violent crime has diminished, the wild expansion of our prisons has proceeded unabated.  Judges have been stripped of discretion and prosecutors have been empowered to call the shots.

Only OCDLA has provided a voice of sanity.  Only OCDLA has pointed out that our State is harmed, not helped, when we divert scarce resources away from rehabilitation and into incarceration.  Only OCDLA has emphasized that, by empowering prosecutors and stripping judges of discretion, the delicate balances of our legal system are thrown out of order.

If OCDLA cared only for improving the economic lot of its members, it would not advocate strenuously for restraint in sentencing policies.  Indeed, harsh sentencing laws actually bring financial benefits to those who defend clients facing the most serious  of crimes.  By supporting OCDLA, criminal defense attorneys show that they are motivated not merely to advance their own narrow economic interests.  Instead, our support of OCDLA demonstrates that we care about those among us who are less fortunate, and that we truly seek a criminal justice system that is characterized by fairness and sanity.

For more information about the important work of the Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, click the OCDLA’s website, at www.ocdla.org.

EXPUNGEMENT OF CRIMINAL ARREST OR CONVICTION IN OREGON

In today’s world, a background check is required for nearly everything. Persons who have an arrest or a criminal conviction on their record may not realize that expungement may be an option. Anyone who has an arrest or conviction on their record should explore the possibility of expungement.

Oregon’s expungement law: What is covered

Convictions for many crimes may be eligible for expungement. Examples include Felonies such as Theft in the First Degree, Possession of Controlled Substance (cocaine, marijuana, meth), Assault in the Third Degree, and many Misdemeanors. Additionally, arrests that do not result in convictions can be expunged in many situations.

Oregon’s expungement law: What is not covered

Convictions for traffic crimes and infractions do not qualify. Sex offenses do not qualify. Class A felonies do not qualify. Ballot Measure 11 felonies do not qualify.