Orange County - Criminal Record Expungement Needed More Than Ever

More than 70% of employers are now performing background checks. This makes it difficult for those with an Orange County criminal record to find employment. Fortunately, California and Florida offer remedies to expunge or seal your Orange County arrest, conviction or juvenile record. Upon expungement, your employment opportunities are opened up tremendously, and you can apply to any job without the fear and embarrassment of background checks.

The expungement law firm of RecordGone.com can help you if your conviction is in Orange County, California or Orange County, Florida. They offer a low-price and money-back guarantee. Take their free online eligibility test and give them a call at 877-573-7273

Seek a Specialized Expungement Attorney to Seal or Expunge Your Record

Any licensed attorney in California or Florida can represent you in court, but choosing a specialized expungement attorney increases your chances of successfully having your record expunged. Many expungement attorneys claim that they can have your record expunged, but usually charge a much higher price; charging close to $1600 for an expungement that can be performed for around $600. Even then, your chances of a successful expungement are much lower than if you choose a specialized expungement attorney. An expungement lawyer that has performed thousands of criminal record record expungements are far more likely to succeed with your case than an attorney who has done it a few times.

Certificate of Rehabilitation Residency Requirments

The State of California requires that people seeking a Certificate of Rehabilitation to have been residents of California for a specific period of time prior to filing their request for th certificate. This time period depends on the crime for which the person is seeking a Certificate of Rehabilitation. There have been challenges to this requirement, arguing that requiring people who have been convicted of felonies to remain in California for several years in order to receive a Certificate of Rehabilitation violates the right to equal protection under the law and right to travel as provided in the United States Constitution. However, the Court of Appeals for California has repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of the residency requirements.

In 2006, the Court of Appeals held that the residency requirements for felons seeking a Certificate of Rehabilitation as set forth in California Penal Code § 4852.01 and § 4852.06 were constitutional in the case of People v. Parker. It re-affirmed this decision in People v. Munizza. In Parker, the person seeking a Certificate of Rehabilitation argued that the residency requirements impeded his right to leave California and live in another state, which he claimed created an impermissible distinction between felons living in the state and felons who have left to live in a different state.

The court, however, rejected this argument and held that the residency requirements for a Certificate of Rehabilitation did not violate either the right to travel or right to equal protection under the law. The right to travel, as relevant to the residency requirements, only obligates states to treat residents of other states as friendly visitors and not unfriendly aliens while temporarily in another state. The court held that by granting rights to residents of California, the state was not then obligated to continue to offer the benefit of its programs to residents who have chosen to leave the state and reside elsewhere.

As pertaining to the right to equal protection under the law, the court in Parker further held that the residency requirements for the Certificate of Rehabilitation did not involve a fundamental right or suspect classification and thus were reviewable under a rational basis test. The court found that California has a compelling interest in only granting Certificates of Rehabilitation to deserving individuals, a goal towards which the residency requirements have a rational and legitimate relationship. The court also noted that a superior court considers more than just the official records of a person?s conviction when decided whether or not to grant a certificate of rehabilitation. Superior courts also deal with a wide range of materials and evidence regarding the individual?s character that are effectively discovered only if the individual has been in California during the period of rehabilitation. Accordingly, the Parker court held that the constitutional right to travel and to equal protection under the law were not violated by the residency requirements necessary for a grant of a Certificate of Rehabilitation.