State v. Motchnik

539 A.2d 548, 149 Vt. 113, 1987 Vt. LEXIS 583
CourtSupreme Court of Vermont
DecidedDecember 18, 1987
DocketNo. 86-298
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 539 A.2d 548 (State v. Motchnik) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Motchnik, 539 A.2d 548, 149 Vt. 113, 1987 Vt. LEXIS 583 (Vt. 1987).

Opinion

Hill, J.

On August 2, 1976, defendant was charged with kidnapping and pleaded not guilty. The state’s attorney dismissed the information on November 9, 1976. The reason for dismissal was not stated. In 1985, defendant filed a motion in district court to expunge the record of his arrest, but the court denied his request, claiming that it was without statutory authority to grant the relief requested. The State neither briefed nor argued a position. We reverse.

On appeal, defendant argues that due process requires a court, even in the absence of statutory authority, to order that arrest records be expunged where harm to the individual would otherwise outweigh the state’s interest in law enforcement. We agree that “courts have recognized that they possess inherent power to order the expunction of arrest records.” Natwig v. Webster, 562 F. Supp. 225, 227 (D.R.I. 1983). However, this power is a narrow one and its exercise should be reserved for the unusual or extreme case. United States v. Linn, 513 F.2d 925, 927 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 836 (1975).

[114]*114In deciding what constitutes the unusual or extreme case, the court must balance the state’s “need for the arrest record against the harm to the person arrested that results from maintaining the records.” Natwig, 562 F. Supp. at 228. We can, therefore, lay down no all-purpose rule governing this determination, and each case must be considered individually.

On this record, we are not convinced that it is appropriate for us to expunge the arrest record of defendant. We therefore remand this matter to the district court for hearing to decide the question.

Remanded for a hearing consistent with this opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Rivard v. Windham County States Attorney
Vermont Superior Court, 2026
In re Guardianship of A.S.
2012 VT 70 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 2012)
State v. Cynthia Cameron
Supreme Court of Vermont, 2011
People v. Carroccia
817 N.E.2d 572 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
539 A.2d 548, 149 Vt. 113, 1987 Vt. LEXIS 583, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-motchnik-vt-1987.