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.
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.