Opinion
C. A. No. 02X-04-008
October 7, 2002
ORDER
By order dated June 27, 2002, this Court granted a petition to expunge seven arrests on the record of the petitioner. The State does not take issue with five of the expungements. It has filed a motion for reargument as to two.
According to the State's reargument motion, the October 7, 1994, arrest resulted in a conviction for unlawful backing and criminal contempt. The companion charge of driving without a valid license did not result in a conviction. Clearly convictions should not be expunged. The June 27, 2002 order is amended, expungement is permitted only for the charge of driving without a valid license.
The Court is compelled to rely upon the representations of the State regarding the convictions as the record provided is largely undecipherable.
The State also objects to the expungement of the June 2, 2000, arrest for driving without a valid license which, again, did not result in a conviction. That expungement is warranted. The conviction of driving without insurance is not to be expunged.
The State had relied in its motion for reargument on two orders of the Superior Court which indicate that this Court does not have the authority to expunge motor vehicle offenses. The record on that point has been expanded. With the benefit of the expanded record, it is now clear that the Department of Motor Vehicles has no authority to expunge motor vehicle records for adults. It is clear that the Superior Court alone has the authority to deal with matters not otherwise within the discretion of the Family Court. The State's objection on the basis of the authority of this court is without merit.
See Hollingsworth v. State, C.A. No. 01X-02-005, Slights, III, J. (Order, Mar. 13, 2001); Stumpf v. State, C.A. No. 00X-03-022, Babiarz, Jr., J. (Order, Dec. 4, 2001).
See Letter of Charlotte D. Fox, Manager of Driver Improvement, Division of Motor Vehicles, Dated Sept. 19, 2002 (outlining internal Department of Motor Vehicle ("DMV") lack of statutory authority to expunge adult convictions) attached as Exhibit A to Letter of Kara R. Haines, Deputy Attorney General, to the Court, Dated Sept. 23, 2002 (forwarding information regarding DMV expungement authority).
"The Division is only sanctioned under Title 10 Del. C. Section 1001 to process expungements of juvenile records. . . There is no comparable statute for expungement relating to a traffic offense a defendant has either plead guilty [to] or [been] found guilty of in Title 21. Moreover, there is no statute in the adult system that allows for expungement of an actual conviction, the charge must be dismissed before there is any allowance of expunging any type of information concerning the charge." See Letter of Charlotte D. Fox.
The motion for reargument is GRANTED as to the October 7, 1994 conviction of unlawful backing and criminal contempt, it is DENIED as to the October 7, 1994 charge of driving without a valid license which must be expunged. The motion is GRANTED as to the June 6, 2000 conviction of driving without insurance, it is DENIED as to the June 6, 2000 charge of driving without a valid license which must be expunged. IT IS SO ORDERED