Santiago Cora v. Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico
2025 TSPR 44
Supreme Court of Puerto Rico2025Background
- Ramón Luis Santiago Cora was convicted of aggravated assault in 1998, served his sentence, and many years later petitioned for the expungement of his criminal record under Puerto Rico’s Law 314-2004.
- Along with the expungement, Santiago Cora requested the return of his fingerprints and booking photographs that were taken during his arrest.
- The trial court granted the expungement of his criminal record but did not address the return of the identification materials.
- Santiago Cora made a formal request for the return of the materials; the trial court denied the request, stating there was no legal basis for returning such material absent an acquittal or pardon.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the continued retention of the records invaded Santiago Cora’s right to privacy.
- The State appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that neither statute nor reasonable expectation of privacy required such a return for convicted and sentenced persons.
Issues
| Issue | Santiago Cora’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State must return arrest fingerprints and photos to a person whose conviction is expunged | Continued retention is an unjustified invasion of privacy, especially after 25 years and elimination from records | No statutory basis for return except acquittal or pardon; records serve ongoing investigatory purposes; kept confidential | No obligation to return; expunged individuals do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in these specific records |
| Whether an expunged conviction alters the individual’s privacy rights over identification information taken at arrest | Expungement means the State should not retain or use these records | Statutes limit return to acquittal/pardon; confidentiality suffices | No enhanced privacy right after expungement; confidentiality required, but records may be retained |
| Whether current law authorizes court-ordered return of such materials post-expungement | Silence in law means courts should grant relief unless opposed | Law only provides mechanism for return in acquittal or pardon, not expungement | Courts have no authority to order return except as expressly provided by statute |
| Whether retention of such records serves a valid state interest | No ongoing utility after decades; risk of improper use outweighs any need | Essential for future investigations, even where public record is expunged | Retention justified to serve public safety, with confidentiality maintained |
Key Cases Cited
- Pueblo v. Ortiz Martínez, 123 DPR 820 (PR 1989) (Expunged convictions cannot be considered in later proceedings; law does not erase the fact a sentence was served)
- Pueblo v. Torres Albertorio, 115 DPR 128 (PR 1984) (Allowing return of records only with acquittal or pardon, absent exceptional circumstances)
- Archevali v. E.L.A., 110 DPR 767 (PR 1981) (No right to return of fingerprint/photos following conviction; retention justified for law enforcement purposes)
- Pueblo v. Santiago Feliciano, 139 DPR 361 (PR 1995) (Expectations of privacy are reduced for those validly arrested)
- Pueblo v. Sánchez Delgado, 99 DPR 260 (PR 1970) (Dactyloscopic identification remains a critical tool for accurate identification)