State v. Brian A. Albertson
Background
- In 2007 Albertson pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine, received a withheld judgment and three years probation; he completed probation and in 2010 moved to withdraw his plea and the court dismissed the charge.
- In 2016 Albertson moved under Idaho Court Administrative Rule (I.C.A.R.) 32 to seal his criminal record, arguing the unsealed record would impede employment in healthcare.
- At the hearing Albertson asserted disclosure on job applications would automatically disqualify him but presented no evidence of prior job denials tied to the record.
- The district court found the public’s interest in disclosure outweighed Albertson’s asserted privacy interest under I.C.A.R. 32(i)(2)(C) because Albertson offered no evidence his record reasonably would cause economic harm.
- The district court denied the motion to seal; Albertson appealed, arguing the court misapplied I.C.A.R. 32 by requiring proof of actual financial loss rather than a showing of reasonable possibility of harm.
Issues
| Issue | Albertson's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court misapplied I.C.A.R. 32(i)(2)(C) by requiring actual financial loss rather than a reasonable possibility of economic harm | I.C.A.R. 32 requires only a showing of reasonably possible economic loss; court erred by demanding proof of actual denial of employment | Court may require evidentiary support to show a reasonable likelihood of economic harm; mere speculation is insufficient | Court affirmed: district court acted within discretion; movant must present evidence linking sealing to likely economic harm |
| Whether the district court must first find financial/economic harm before balancing privacy vs public interest | Albertson: a finding of (possible) economic harm is a prerequisite to proceeding to the balancing step | State: I.C.A.R. 32(i)(1) and (2) are considered concurrently; bases in (2) limit sealing discretion but do not create a sequential prerequisite | Court held the considerations are concurrent; district court properly balanced interests under I.C.A.R. 32 |
| Whether sealing would allow Albertson to truthfully deny a prior conviction on applications | Albertson: sealing would prevent employers from verifying and thus effectively mitigate employment barriers | State: sealing does not erase conviction; applicants still must disclose convictions and national databases may still reflect them | Court held sealing would not let Albertson truthfully deny conviction; sealing does not provide full expungement |
| Whether I.C.A.R. 32 relief can erase conviction from public record (expungement) | Albertson sought relief that would make his conviction appear never to have occurred | State: Idaho law lacks true expungement; sealing only limits public access to court records, not destruction or national databases | Court held Idaho has no mechanism to erase conviction; sealing is sequestration only and would not achieve Albertson’s goal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hedger, 115 Idaho 598 (discretionary-review standard for trial-court decisions)
- State v. Turpen, 147 Idaho 869 (expungement means sequestration, not destruction of public records)
- State v. Allen, 156 Idaho 332 (sealing does not remove requirement to disclose conviction; sealing may not alleviate employment barriers)
- State v. Parkinson, 144 Idaho 825 (state cannot compel FBI to remove conviction entries from national databases)
- United States v. Sharp, 145 Idaho 403 (withheld-judgment plea constitutes a conviction)
- State v. Wagenius, 99 Idaho 273 (withheld judgment treated as conviction)
- State v. Glenn, 156 Idaho 22 (withdrawal of plea and dismissal do not erase that a conviction occurred)