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
© 2025 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 AllLaw Firms Look to Gen Z for AI Skills, as 'Data Becomes the Oil of Legal'
Law Firms Expand Scope of Immigration Expertise Amid Blitz of Trump Orders
6 minute readLosses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Lawyers' Reenactment Footage Leads to $1.5M Settlement
- 2People in the News—Feb. 4, 2025—McGuireWoods, Barley Snyder
- 3Eighth Circuit Determines No Standing for Website User Concerned With Privacy Who Challenged Session-Replay Technology
- 4Superior Court Re-examines Death of a Party Pending a Divorce Action
- 5Chicago Law Requiring Women, Minority Ownership Stake in Casinos Is Unconstitutional, New Suit Claims
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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