48 N.E.3d 356
Ind. Ct. App.2015Background
- J.S. petitioned to expunge his 2009 Class A misdemeanor OWI and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement convictions after the 2013 felony OWI conviction with a CDL ban.
- Trial court granted expungement and ordered the BMV not to disclose the 2009 OWI to the CDLIS.
- BMV, Indiana and its commissioner appealed, arguing the expungement order conflicted with federal and Indiana reporting laws.
- J.S. held a CDL at the time; expungement would seal records but not necessarily silence reporting required by federal regulations.
- The BMV sought relief under Trial Rule 60(B) arguing the expungement order violated federal and Indiana law; the trial court denied relief.
- Indiana amended expungement/scope provisions in 2015 to clarify disclosures to BMV, FMCSA, and CDLIS, relevant to reporting convictions previously expunged.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BMV may report expunged conviction to CDLIS | J.S. argues expunged records are sealed and not reportable | BMV argues federal and state reporting laws require disclosure | BMV must disclose; expungement does not bar reporting per federal law |
| Whether Indiana expungement law conflicts with federal CDL reporting requirements | Indiana law should prevail unless it conflicts; expungement protects records | Federal regulations preempt conflicting state law | Federal law controls; Indiana statutes conflicting with 49 C.F.R. § 384.226 are displaced |
| Effect of 2015 amendment to Indiana expungement statute on reporting | Amendment shows intent to prevent conflict with federal rules | Amendment clarifies reporting to BMV/CDLIS when required | Amendment supports compliance; but supremacy governs absent reconciliation |
Key Cases Cited
- Gibson v. Hand, 756 N.E.2d 544 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (FMCSA reporting requirements govern CDL decisions under Supremacy Clause)
- Ziobron v. Crawford, 667 N.E.2d 202 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (conflicts between state law and federal mandate; preemption analysis)
- U.S. Steel Corp. v. N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co., 951 N.E.2d 542 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (statutory interpretation; legislative intent; regularity of applying statutes)