Petition to Seal 1983 Police Report & Court Record Granted

In 1983, our client was 20 years old.  He was arrested by the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department with a small bag of cocaine and later prosecuted in the Culver City courthouse (this has since closed).  He was charged with a felony violation of Health & Safety Code § 11350(a) and, pursuant to a deal with the prosecution wherein after he attended 52 Narcotics Anonymous (NA) meetings, the case was dismissed under Penal Code § 1385 in 1985.

In 2024, he was 61 years old and retired from a successful career in finance, but still keeping active in various capacities as a board member for several corporations and non-profit organizations.  He had a FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority) license which he kept current, but was growing tired of having to explain his 1983 arrest and prosecution even though the case was ultimately dismissed.  

After all, in the 40-plus years since the case, he had no intervening criminal history except for a few parking tickets, but having to explain the arrest and the case outcome over and over made him feel like he had actually been convicted of the crime, although he was not.  He suspected that he was regarded as a drug addict as well based on the arrest and prosecution.

He then called Greg Hill & Associates because he had heard about expungement and sealing and wanted to know if anything could be done for him.

The client explained what had happened in 1983 and how the case was dismissed.  Greg asked the client specific questions about whether the case was dismissed under Proposition 36 (“Prop 36”) because if the case was dismissed under Proposition 36, sealing was not allowed.  

Greg then explained what expungement was for (convictions) and that this probably did not apply to the client’s case, based on what the client described.  

Greg then explained what sealing was and how this would apply if the client did not have his case dismissed under Prop 36 (under Prop 36, one is actually convicted, so sealing does not apply).

The client said he was interested in sealing because, if such an order was granted by the judge, the record of his arrest and the case being filed would be erased, deleted or removed from his record and then he would not have to again explain the case to FINRA when he renewed his license every two years.  He also did not want anyone else to see his record and make unfair assumptions about him.

Greg then went to court and surprisingly, found the docket and confirmed that the charge was not dismissed under Prop 36.  Greg then told the client the good news and the client retained Greg Hill & Associates.

Our office then prepared the Petition to Seal, supplementing the judicial council form with a short memorandum of points and authorities and a declaration from our client explaining why he requested sealing.  Our office then served the petition to the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department and the Airport District Attorney’s Office (Culver City cases were transferred to the Airport Courthouse).

The court then notified our office of a hearing date and department, which we then relayed to the client.

On the day of the hearing, Greg appeared on the client’s behalf in the Airport Courthouse.  The district attorney’s office did not oppose the petition and the judge granted it.

Our office shared the good news with the client, who was very happy to be relieved of this stigma and burden of always having to explain a case that was ultimately dismissed.

We also explained to the client that although the judge signed the order, the record of the arrest and the court file would not be erased by the California DOJ in Sacramento for several weeks.  We cautioned him that, in our experience, it often took four to six weeks.  We also explained that the DOJ does not notify the client when the record is sealed.  Instead, one must monitor one’s record to verify the order to seal was acted upon.