New York Law Review

Tag: Probation Department Records

  • Alonzo M. v. New York City Department of Probation, 72 N.Y.2d 662 (1988): Use of Sealed Juvenile Records

    72 N.Y.2d 662 (1988)

    A probation department violates the sealing provisions of Family Court Act § 375.1 when it divulges information from its own records concerning cases terminated in a juvenile’s favor, even if the information is maintained separately from official court records.

    Summary

    The New York City Department of Probation (Probation) disclosed sealed information about a juvenile, Alonzo M., to the Family Court during a dispositional hearing for a probation violation. This information stemmed from Probation’s own administrative records, not directly from court files. The New York Court of Appeals held that this disclosure violated Family Court Act § 375.1, which mandates the sealing of records in cases terminated in the juvenile’s favor. The court reasoned that allowing Probation to circumvent the sealing order by using its own records would undermine the statute’s purpose of protecting individuals from adverse consequences of allegations not resulting in conviction. However, the court clarified that background facts, if relevant and from independent sources, could still be disclosed.

    Facts

    Alonzo M., a juvenile, was placed on probation after being found to have committed acts that would constitute robbery in the third degree if committed by an adult. Later, he was alleged to have violated his probation. For the dispositional hearing on the violation, Probation prepared an updated Investigation and Report (I & R). The I & R listed four prior arrests, two marked as sealed and two as dismissed. The report also noted that Alonzo had been rearrested on “robbery related charges” during his probation period, with those charges also having been terminated in his favor and sealed.

    Procedural History

    Alonzo M. initiated an Article 78 proceeding to compel Probation to comply with Family Court Act § 375.1 and CPL 160.50, seeking to keep his favorably terminated cases sealed and to remove references to them from the I & R. The Supreme Court ordered Probation to redact specific details (dates, docket numbers, dispositions, characterization of charges) but allowed recitation of the underlying facts from a psychological report. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that Family Court Act § 375.1 would be undermined if Probation could use its own records of sealed cases. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the sealing provisions of Family Court Act § 375.1 are violated when a public agency, maintaining records of cases terminated in a juvenile’s favor, divulges information from its own, separately maintained records in a subsequent investigation and report.

    Holding

    Yes, because Family Court Act § 375.1 mandates that all official records and papers relating to the arrest, prosecution, and probation service proceedings be sealed and not made available to any person or public or private agency, and this protection would be vitiated if the Department of Probation were permitted to refer to its official records pertaining to such prior sealed cases in a subsequent investigation and report.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals emphasized the clear and unambiguous language of Family Court Act § 375.1(1), which directs that records of favorably terminated juvenile delinquency proceedings be sealed and not made available to any person or agency. The court noted that this provision is patterned after CPL 160.50 but provides even greater protection for juveniles. Specifically, the Family Court Act explicitly includes probation agency records among those to be sealed and lacks the exception in CPL 160.50 allowing disclosure to law enforcement agencies. The court also pointed out that the Legislature had twice rejected proposed amendments to Family Court Act § 375.1(3) that would have allowed Probation Departments to use information from sealed records. The court stated, “Courts should construe clear and unambiguous statutes so as to give effect to the plain meaning of the words used.” The court further stated, “[U]pon [favorable] termination of a delinquency proceeding * * * the court shall enter an order which shall immediately be served * * * upon the heads of the appropriate probation department * * * directing that all official records and papers * * * relating to the arrest, the prosecution and the probation service proceedings, including all duplicates or copies thereof, on file with the * * * probation service * * * be sealed and not made available to any person or public or private agency.” The court dismissed Probation’s argument that the information came from its own records, calling this a “Big-Brother-like evasion” of the law. The dissenting opinion argued that the court should have access to all relevant information, including sealed records, to make informed decisions about juvenile supervision.