California Pushes to Automate Cannabis Clearances in a Model for Conviction Relief
Code for America partnered with California counties to automate the clearance of thousands of cannabis convictions.
April 10, 2019 at 09:30 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Legal Tech News
Last week, Los Angeles County and San Joaquin County jointly announced that they would be partnering with Code for America to automate the clearance of more than 50,000 cannabis convictions rendered eligible under Proposition 64 (a.k.a. the California Marijuana Legalization Initiative). It's a process that may just revolutionize the way that records are cleared in the future.
“There's no action required by the person with the criminal record. There's no hearing required, no petitions required that somebody would have to go to court to follow,” said Alia Toran-Burrell, senior program manager for Clear My Record at Code for America. “We're automating this process and putting the onus on the government instead of the person.”
Los Angles and San Joaquin aren't the first counties to hop aboard the Code for America bandwagon. A pilot program was launched in San Francisco in May 2018 to review each of the approximately 9300 eligible cases that had been accumulating since 1975.
According to Alex Bastian, deputy chief of staff in the San Francisco District Attorney's Office, only a small fraction had been successfully petitioned for review. He cited legal fees and time away from work as possible deterrents for people who would otherwise be inclined to seek relief, even though having those convictions cleared could possibly make it easier for someone to find housing, gain employment or receive a loan.
The district attorney's office was able to initially determine who could potentially have their convictions dismissed under Proposition 64 by using set of eligible requirements. Rap sheets were then pulled and fed to a code developed by Code for America, which reviewed them based on the predetermined eligibility criteria.
Once the eligible candidates had been determined, any relevant motions or petitions were automatically filled out and filed with the court. After 13 months, every single eligible case in San Francisco had been processed, coming in well under the original 18 month deadline.
“Instead of having courts process files one by one with hearings, it's been like kind of a bulk upload into their court system. So it's streamlining the process from top to bottom,” Toran-Burrell said.
The program received its first upgrade shortly after California passed Assembly Bill 1793, which required the state's Department of Justice to flag past all convictions that are potentially up for dismissal.
The district attorney's offices in both Los Angeles County and San Joaquin County have been working with Code for America since July 2018, but formally announced the partnership last week. Greg Risling, a public information officer at Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, said the details surrounding how Code for America's technology will be applied there are still being worked out.
Los Angeles has approximately 50,000 convictions eligible under Prop 64. During a press conference held last Monday, Los Angeles County District Attorney Jackie Lacey described the original clearance process approved by voters as cumbersome.
“We believe this partnership will not only benefit the people whose cannabis convictions will be cleared but also save government the resources that otherwise would be required to comply with the law,” Lacey said.
San Joaquin County, meanwhile, has 4,000 eligible cases under Prop 64, but is still working against the same July 1, 2020, review deadline laid out by Assembly Bill 1793.
Code for America is already thinking beyond that deadline. The organization has designs that exceed marijuana, including automating relief associated with California Proposition 47, which reduced some non-violent felonies to misdemeanors. Proposition 64 has been almost like a test ground, a way to prove to people that technology can benefit the legal system without becoming prohibitively expensive or cumbersome.
“We're really seeing the work with Proposition 64 and marijuana convictions as a blueprint to think about how other types of remedies in California and across the nation can be automated,” Lacey said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllShareholder Activists Poised to Pounce in 2025. Is Your Board Ready?
NLRB Bans 'Captive Audience' Meetings, Yanking Away Platform Employers Used to Combat Unionizing
Trending Stories
- 1Prior Inconsistent Statements and Medical Malpractice Defense
- 2Public Interest Calendar of Events
- 3Why Law Firms Should Focus on IA for Improved Gen AI
- 4Post-Pandemic Increase in Live Events Prompts Need for Premise Liability Action
- 5Companies' Dirty Little Secret: Those Privacy Opt-Out Requests Usually Aren't Honored
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250