SESSION OF 2023
SUPPLEMENTAL NOTE ON HOUSE BILL NO. 2028
As Amended by House Committee on Judiciary

Brief*
HB 2028, as amended, would create and amend law
regarding expungement, including providing for automatic
expungement of criminal charges and arrest records in
certain circumstances.
The bill would require, on and after July 1, 2024, if a
court enters an order of acquittal of criminal charges against
a person or enters an order dismissing, with or without
prejudice, all criminal charges in a case against a person, the
court to order the record of such charges and related arrest
records expunged 30 days after such order is entered,
unless:
● The person objects to the expungement;
● An appeal is filed; or
● The prosecutor files a written objection to the
expungement.
If an appeal is filed and results in a mandate affirming
the district court’s dismissal, the district court would be
required to order the records expunged 30 days after the
mandate is filed.
If the prosecutor files a written objection to the
expungement, the bill would require the court to promptly hold
a hearing on such objection. If the court finds expungement is
appropriate, the court would be required to order the records
____________________
*Supplemental notes are prepared by the Legislative Research
Department and do not express legislative intent. The supplemental
note and fiscal note for this bill may be accessed on the Internet at
http://www.kslegislature.org
expunged 30 days after such hearing. If the court finds
expungement is not appropriate, the bill would prohibit the
court from ordering the records expunged.
The bill would specify that an order expunging records
under the above provisions would not require any action by
the person.
The bill would provide that a person, who has been
charged with a criminal offense and who has been acquitted
of such charges or against whom charges have been
dismissed, whose records have not been expunged under the
above provisions, may petition the court in which the
disposition of charges was made to expunge all charges and
related arrest records. The bill would require such petition to
be filed not sooner than 60 days after the order of acquittal or
dismissal is entered by the court. After the filing of such
petition, the court would be required to notify the prosecutor,
who would have the opportunity to respond within 30 days
after the filing of the petition. The prosecutor would be
required to notify the arresting law enforcement agency of the
petition. If a response objecting to the expungement is filed,
the court would be required to set the matter for hearing, and
the prosecutor would be required to notify any victim of the
hearing. If a response objecting to the expungement is not
filed, the court would be required to order expungement of the
records 30 days after the filing of the petition. If the court finds
that a petition is properly filed, the court would be required to
grant the petition and order the court records and related
arrest records expunged if such order is consistent with the
public welfare.
The bill would provide that expungement procedures
established by the bill would not apply to diversions for a
violation of driving under the influence under state law.
The bill would provide that an order of expungement
under its provisions would expunge all criminal records in the
custody of the court and any criminal records in the custody
of any other agency or official, including law enforcement
2- 2028
records, related to the charges described in such order. The
bill would specify procedures by which various agencies and
entities who might have related records would be notified of
the expungement.
The bill would provide that, after the order of
expungement is entered, the petitioner would be treated as
not having been arrested, charged, acquitted, dismissed, or
diverted of the crime, except that upon conviction for any
subsequent crime, the diversion that was expunged may be
considered as a prior conviction in determining the sentence
to be imposed, and the petitioner would be required to
disclose that the arrest, acquittal, dismissal, or diversion
occurred if asked about previous arrests, convictions, or
diversions in certain applications for licensure, registration, or
employment as specified in the bill.
The bill would also permit the court, in the order of
expungement, to specify other circumstances under which
the conviction is to be disclosed. The diversion could be
disclosed in a subsequent prosecution for an offense that
requires as an element of such offense a prior conviction of
the type expunged. Upon commitment to the custody of the
Secretary of Corrections, any previously expunged record in
the possession of the Secretary could be reinstated and the
expungement disregarded, and the records continued for the
purposes of the new commitment.
Upon a motion establishing good cause, the court could
set aside the expungement order under the bill’s provisions.
Subject to the disclosures required by the bill, in any
application for employment, license, or other civil right or
privilege, or any appearance as a witness, a person whose
records have been expunged under the bill’s provisions may
state that such person has never been arrested, charged,
acquitted, dismissed, or diverted of the crime.


3- 2028
 The bill would outline the full restoration of a person’s
right to keep and bear arms if disqualifying records are
expunged under the bill’s provisions.
Whenever the records of arrest, acquittal, dismissal,
conviction, or diversion related to a criminal charge have
been expunged under the bill’s provisions or under the
provisions of any other existing or former statute, the bill
would prohibit the custodian of such records from disclosing
the existence of such records, except when requested by:
● The person whose record was expunged;
● Entities or persons in connection with an
application for certain licensure, registration,
certification, or employment, as specified by the
bill;
● A court, upon a showing of a subsequent
conviction of the person whose record has been
expunged;
● A person entitled to such information pursuant to
the terms of the expungement order;
● A prosecutor, for the purpose of a potential
prosecution;
● The Kansas Sentencing Commission;
● A law enforcement agency, for the purposes of a
criminal investigation;
● The Attorney General, for any other purpose
authorized by law, except an expungement record
could not be the basis for denial of a license to
carry a concealed handgun; or
● The Kansas Bureau of Investigation (KBI), for the
purpose of completing a person’s criminal history
record information within the central repository.
4- 2028
 The bill would state that, for purposes of the bill’s
provisions, the term “criminal charges” would not include a
traffic infraction not classified as a misdemeanor.
The bill would state that the new section created by the
bill, except for the automatic expungement procedure, would
be construed and applied retroactively.
The bill would amend the existing Kansas Criminal Code
statute governing expungement to remove provisions
regarding diversion, which would be replaced by the new
procedures created by the bill.

Background
The bill was introduced by the House Committee on
Judiciary at the request of Representative Curtis.
[Note: A substantially similar bill, 2022 HB 2575, was
passed by the House Committee on Judiciary in the 2022
Legislative Session, but was stricken from the House
Calendar.]

House Committee on Judiciary
In the House Committee hearing on January 25, 2023,
the Wyandotte County District Attorney, Executive Director of
the Kansas African American Affairs Commission, one private
citizen, and representatives of the Greater Kansas City
Chamber of Commerce, Kansas County and District
Attorneys Association, Kansas Public Health Department,
State Board of Indigents’ Defense Services, Stewart Law
Office, and the Unified Government of Wyandotte
County/Kansas City testified as proponents of the bill,
stating it would help reduce barriers to expungement, which
would help individuals in endeavors such as acquiring
housing and employment and productively participating in
society. The Mayor of the City of Leavenworth and a

5- 2028
representative of the American Civil Liberties Union – Kansas
provided written-only proponent testimony.
A representative of the Judicial Branch presented
neutral testimony requesting an amendment to extend the
bill’s implementation date.
Representatives of the Kansas Judicial Council and the
League of Kansas Municipalities provided written-only neutral
testimony.
The House Committee amended the bill to extend its
implementation date by one year and to remove references to
violations of city ordinances and county resolutions for driving
under the influence in the section describing exceptions to the
use of automatic expungement pursuant to the bill.

Fiscal Information
According to the fiscal note prepared by the Division of
the Budget on the bill, as introduced, KBI indicates enactment
of the bill would result in additional expenditures of $56,326
from the State General Fund (SGF) in FY 2024. Of that
amount, $52,326 would be to hire an additional FTE position
to process additional expungements and the remaining
$4,000 would be for one-time costs to purchase computer
equipment and software.
The Office of Judicial Administration (OJA) states
enactment of the bill would allow petitions to be filed with the
district courts and require court hearings for those cases,
which could result in more time spent by court employees and
judges processing and deciding those cases. OJA indicates
most of the district court clerk’s duties required in the bill’s
provisions are already performed under current law; however,
OJA estimates that the volume of work would increase under
the bill. In addition, courts would have to track cases in which
charges are dismissed or the defendant is acquitted and to
accomplish this, court clerks would have to perform this
6- 2028
procedure manually or the centralized case management
system would need to be reprogrammed, which would result
in additional expenditures.
OJA also estimates enactment of the bill could result in
the collection of docket fees in those petitions filed under the
bill’s provisions, which would be credited to the SGF.
According to OJA, a fiscal effect cannot be estimated. Any
fiscal effect associated with enactment of the bill is not
reflected in The FY 2024 Governor’s Budget Report.
The Kansas Association of Counties states enactment of
the bill would eliminate the need for documents to be filed
and for court proceedings to take place for these
expungements, which the Association estimates could save
court docket time and costs for Kansas counties.
Expungement; automatic; acquittal; dismissal; criminal charges; arrest records


7- 2028


Statutes affected:
As introduced: 21-6614
As Amended by House Committee: 21-6614