Id. (quoting S.L.H, 755 N.W.2d at 275) (other quotation omitted). In this case, the district court acknowledged the holdings of S.L.H. and N.G.K but relied on this court's opinion in State v. V.A.J., 744 N.W.2d 674 (Minn.App. 2008), review denied (Minn. Oct. 1, 2008), to support its expungement order.

H.A., 716 N.W.2d at 363. As the city notes, the district court's order in this case was issued after, and appears to be based on, this court's decision in State v. V.A.J., 744 N.W.2d 674 (Minn.App. 2008), review denied (Minn. Oct. 1, 2008).

Id. at 278 (quotation omitted). In State v. V.A.J., 744 N.W.2d 674, 678 (Minn. App. 2008), review denied (Minn. Oct. 1, 2008), this court ruled that executive branch records "generated as a result of a judicial proceeding" could be expunged under a district court's inherent authority, including public records maintained by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA).

The State of Minnesota appeals from an order granting respondent L.W.H., Jr.'s petition to expunge records of his convictions of burglary and forgery held at the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA). The state asserts that the district court incorrectly relied on this court's decision in State v. V.A.J., 744 N.W.2d 674, 678 (Minn.App. 2008), review denied (Minn. Oct. 1, 2008).

The district court initially denied expungement, concluding that respondent had no statutory right to relief and that the court lacked inherent authority to expunge records of the executive branch due to the doctrine of separation of powers. Shortly after the district court filed its order, this court released its decision in State v. V.A.J., 744 N.W.2d 674 (Minn.App. 2008). Based on V.A.J., the district court sua sponte vacated its first order and reversed itself, concluding that it had inherent authority to expunge respondent's criminal records, even those held by the executive branch.

In State v. M.L.A., 785 N.W.2d 763, 764–65 (Minn.App.2010), this court held that the district court could not order the Department of Human Services to seal criminal records of a nursing assistant/phlebotomist who had been convicted of fifth-degree controlled substance possession eight years earlier and who alleged inability to pursue employment. In a strongly worded opinion, this court directed the district court to follow S.L.H., rather than an opinion issued by this court before S.L.H., State v. V.A.J., 744 N.W.2d 674 (Minn.App.2008), review denied (Minn. Oct. 1, 2008).

Appellant argues that the district court's order provides a meaningless remedy if it is not extended to cover records held by the BCA because "most publicly available databases use the BCA and not the courts when reporting convictions." She relies on State v. V.A.J., 744 N.W.2d 674, 678 (Minn. App. 2008) ("[W]hen a district court orders an expungement of a criminal record by way of its inherent authority, that expungement order includes the judicially created public record maintained by the BCA."), review denied (Minn. Oct. 1, 2008).

Thus, for a court to grant expungement of records held outside the judicial branch based on its inherent authority, the relief requested must be "necessary to the performance of the judicial function as contemplated in our state constitution." S.L.H., 755 N.W.2d at 275 (citation omitted); see City of Crystal v. N.G.K., 770 N.W.2d 177, 182 (Minn. App. 2009) (interpreting S.L.H. to override the judicially-created-public-record analysis in State v. V.A.J., 744 N.W.2d 674 (Minn. App. 2008), review denied (Minn. Oct. 1, 2008), and to define the court's inherent authority more narrowly).