Arrestees Factually Innocent Under Penal Code Section 851.8 Can Have Fingerprints Sealed and Destroyed
Overview: The California Court of Appeal held that fingerprint impressions taken of suspects at the time of their arrest constitute “records of arrest” that can be sealed and destroyed if the suspect is found to be factually innocent under Penal Code section 851.8.
Training Points: While all law enforcement agencies are required to submit fingerprint impressions of arrestees to the Department of Justice and the Attorney General’s Office, some agencies have their own internal policies regarding when to retain or when to destroy this evidence.
Summary Analysis: In People v. Christiansen, Christiansen appealed her conviction on charges related to violations of the conflict-of-interest laws under the Government Code. Her convictions were reversed, her sentence vacated and the charges dismissed. On remand, Christiansen moved for a dismissal of the charges and a finding of “factual innocence” under Penal Code section 851.8, including an order that all records of her arrest and conviction be sealed and destroyed. The court granted Christiansen’s request for relief under Penal Code section 851.8, declaring Christiansen “factually innocent” of the charges and ordered her arrest record sealed and destroyed. But, rather than issuing an order to destroy her fingerprint impressions, the court ordered them retained. Christiansen appealed.
The Appellate Court held that Christiansen’s fingerprint impressions constituted “records of arrest” within the meaning of Penal Code section 851.8, and should have been sealed and destroyed since Christiansen was found to be factually innocent. The Court rejected the prosecution’s argument that Christiansen’s fingerprint impressions should be retained to track arrests and convictions. The Court found this argument nonsensical since the statute itself requires the destruction of records of arrests of persons found to be factually innocent, therefore obviating the need to track or retain information about these persons.
An affected agency can expect to receive a letter from the defendant’s counsel with the court order to seal and destroy records and fingerprint impressions.
