Sheriff Michelle Duncan and District Attorney Doug Marteeny in the DA’s office Tuesday morning.
This week I talked with Linn County Sheriff Michelle Duncan and District Attorney Doug Marteeny about how the Oregon legislature has managed to keep the public in the dark about a couple of things related to crime.
One item is mug shots of people who have been arrested and booked. The other affects the criminal records of people once they have completed their sentences.
I got interested last month after the Oregon State Police arrested a man and a woman from North Las Vegas on Interstate 5 in Linn County. In their vehicle troopers found about 100 pounds of crystal meth and 11 pounds of suspected fentanyl powder. The driver and passenger were booked at the Linn County Jail.
Curious, I wanted to see what they looked like, but the sheriff’s list of people in custody reminded me: “Oregon’s 2021 Legislature passed House Bill 3273, which prohibits the release of a booking photo by a law enforcement agency to the public.”
Testimony supporting that bill included statements from a couple of people who were booked but not charged after taking part in Portland protest demonstrations in 2000. They complained about being “doxed” — that is, harassed at home and work — after their mug shots were published.
The I-5 drug arrests happened on Aug. 26. A few days later the man was still listed on the jail roster. The woman passenger was gone. The DA’s office told me her case had been taken over by federal agents.
In any case, one day in September I talked with Marteeny about the legislature keeping booking photos from the public. That’s when I learned about the other thing: Criminal histories, even rap sheets that are long, now may be shoved down the state government’s memory hole so that people can legally claim their criminal past does not exist.
The 2021 legislature, the same one that protected people from embarrassment when the public sees their booking photos, also made it easier for people to have their criminal records expunged after a certain number of years. (Seven years for Class B felonies like second-degree manslaughter, three years for Class A misdemeanors, and one year for lesser crimes.)
The bill, SB 397, passed the Senate with only five Republicans and voting “nay.” Then it sailed through the House with 57 “aye” votes and only one Republican (Cedric Hayden) voting “nay.”
The Linn County sheriff and the DA think the law is, in Marteeny’s word, a “disaster.”
Here is one result: One man in Linn County had 21 convictions for offenses including felony assault, vehicle theft, felony possession of controlled substances, and carrying a concealed firearm. Now his record has been wiped clean under the new law, except for one driving offense.
“Everything but the driving while suspended has been erased,” Marteeny said.
This may have been an extreme case, but there are many others. SB 397 took effect on Jan. 1, 2022. From then through Oct. 3, 2024, 215 women and 413 men have had their criminal records expunged in Linn County alone.
Sheriff Duncan faces a dilemma. Oregon is a “shall issue” state when it comes to handgun licenses. Her deputies usually remember the records of certain people. But when these people have their records expunged and then come in for a concealed handgun license, the sheriff must issue one.
“It hinders truth,” Marteeny says of the new law. “We should not fear truth. This law hides the truth from employers, the court, and the public at large.”
If the 2025 legislature does not return the expungement law to what it was before 2022, an unlikely prospect, Marteeny has a suggestion: Add a provision that cancels any expungement if the person commits a new crime.
That would be common sense. Whether the legislature has any on this point, we’ll have to wait and see. (hh)
As a lover of freedom and due process I support mugshots not being publicly released after arrest and booking.
Neither Hasso or the law enforcement authorities mention it, but the 9th Circuit (No. 23-15524) recently ruled on a case in Phoenix that the practice “could be unfairly punishing individuals who have not yet been convicted of a crime.”
“Transparency” is not a sufficient reason for government to release granular details about a person’s identity before conviction.
And for goodness sakes, don’t presume that every mugshot you see on the internet is guilty after arrest and booking.
Achieve the transparency objective after conviction. Then publish everything about the criminal.
i agree with you on this. Great ideas
Those supporting expungements and hiding the faces of those accused (as well as those convicted) are missing the BIG points about American Justice. Unlike our European and English cousins we have always “married” democracy” and justice. We do not do these things in the dark. Not only do we hold people accountable, with so many similar names we make sure we are in fact talking about the RIGHT people. You don’t see the pictures of any convicted people any longer, either. We are now running a secret system of justice, with balances and checks….by nobody.. There was a time when someone like Hasso would be saying “Really! You arrested them? What evidence did you have?” Now, it’s all swept under the rug!”
Understand the man you hired to babysit your kids may have done time for Sexual Abuse – twice, but don’t worry it was just two times 6 and 7 years ago. Why would you need to know that? Or the contractor who you give $20,000 to fix your house. Turns out three separate times in as many decades he’s been convicted of embezzlement of greater amounts from prospective clients.!
But reducing any accountability surely offsets the risk to the community, doesn’t it? Should potential police officers have DUII and domestic violence convictions? Surely bygones should be bygones!.
So if you look up any prisoner in an Oregon state prison, YOU WILL INDEED SEE their picture. So how can we be hiding them?
That a way Oregon. Let the criminals reign!
Expungement is a difficult issue.
Clearly the records of people who have been convicted of a violent crime should not be erased, even after release.
But people who have been convicted of a non-violent crime? Virtually all of these folks will one day be released.
If these non-violent folks remain crime free then they have earned a second chance. Allowing them to petition the court for expungement seems reasonable.
Interesting that this article was framed in this way.
By keeping public records of past mistakes, we’re essentially imposing a lifetime sentence, violating the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The Constitution guarantees the right to rehabilitation and reintegration into society, not perpetual punishment. Oregon’s new law is a step towards upholding this constitutional promise.
Duncan and Marteeny’s concerns about “truth” and “transparency” must be balanced against the constitutional imperative to protect the rights of the rehabilitated. We must not forget that our justice system is designed to rehabilitate, not JUST punish. By expunging records, Oregon is giving people a chance to start anew, as our Constitution intended. Anything less is a betrayal of our founding values.
Doug and Michelle, please go back and re-read the constitution. After all….you DID take an oath, and I, for one, take it seriously.
https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2023R1/Downloads/PublicTestimonyDocument/58935#:~:text=Clean%20Slate%20policies%20authorize%20states,eligible%20for%20record%20clearance%20relief.
Veronica Chapman’s link is to testimony in the 2023 legislature supporting two bills that would have made expungement of criminal histories automatic, without the need for a petition. The bills, SB 697 and 698, did not pass.
When I worked at the Oregon Employment Department for Community Services Consortium, I regularly coached (taught) folks who had a tough time filling out a job application because of the then very common question “Have you ever been convicted…” I asked every one of them if their conviction was, in fact, “expungable.” If yes, run, don’t walk, to make that happen. You did the crime, you’ve done the time. Get if off your record! A few other processes also helped quite a few of them to get a job.
Please do a follow-up story on the expungement process. One of the steps in the process includes a motion to set aside which is sent to the district attorney (DA) for review and is a step in the court granting the motion. The DA does have an opportunity to object, which isn’t mentioned in the article above. More information on the relevant waiting period and expungement process is available at https://ojrc.info/expungement
Imagine being arrested for something you didn’t do, and then having your mugshot posted online. Pretty bad. But wait, it gets worse! Sleazy companies copy your image and the false accusations and post them all over the web. Any google search of your name brings up piles of ads with your mugshot and accusations. The business model? Simple! Force people to pay to have their image taken down. Of course, thousands of sleazebags were running the same racket, so clearing your reputation is almost impossible.
Online mugshots were a BAD idea.
Hasso, it seems from the comments addressing your blog post that you are ill informed and don’t have sufficient knowledge on the subject and shot from the hip with your article!! Shame on you. Why did you want to know what the people arrested (and I didn’t say “convicted”) on I-5 with drugs in their car looked like?
“Shot from the hip” is the best way to describe Hasso’s post. It would be nice if he’d actually give some serious thought to his comments.
My first knee jerk reaction was -WHAT?
I suggest that before we make a judgement about this that time be taken to read SENATE BILL 397. It takes some time but does clarify questions. It isn’t an automatic procedure, there are steps that must be followed before expungement
What about child molesters, do they get their records expunged? That would be a crime against other innocent children and endangerment. I hope molesters records never get expunged. It is nearly impossible to reform a child molester. Same goes for rape.
No, as I understand it, Measure 11 crimes are not eligible for expungement.
Mr. K, when I was on unemployment, the only jobs they referred me to were jobs below my skill level and too low of wage to support my family. Thankfully, I looked for work on my own and found a job where I was treated with respect and paid me a livable wage. No one at the “unemployment” office cared that I had young kiddos to support. They told me I had to take anything they offered. Our family would have lost everything doing the jobs I was offered. The government has earned the bad rap of not serving our best interests. It would be foolish on our part to completely trust a system that worries more about helping criminals than people trying to take care of their families. Our caution is based on experiences, not by a paranoid or hateful mind.
I didn’t work for the OED, I worked at the OED for CSC. I taught classes on resume/cover letter writing, interviewing, referring folks to other agencies who could possibly help them based on their individual situations, etc. Yes, I also helped quite a few who had “records.” My job did not call for judging them for their past…
Perhaps too many politicians had criminal records they wanted hidden!
Simple solution: Once a conviction takes place, then the info is public. That way, those arrested, but not convicted have not been publicly outed. Oregon has become a laughingstock for criminals!
Mr. K, Your job was to help everyone who needs it including non-offenders. Everyone has their own story and being down and out no matter if your past is not burdened with illegal activity, deserves the same due diligence. No one took the time to care about my family’s situation. Why are we expected to do the time, when we didn’t do the crime? Not valuing everyone’s experiences is a form of judging their past.
If you read the law you would see that committing a new crime restarts the time you have to wait(precisely the thing you ask for in your closing statement), and you can not set aside a violent crime if there is a victim. This is an extremely biased article.