Sun. Sep 19th, 2021
Darren Chaker record sealing

Darren Chaker writes on laws to seal record in California. Juvenile Record Sealing in California provides significant advantages. California record sealing allows adult and juvenile records to be sealed then destroyed.  Laws to seal a juvenile in California are strict.  Welfare & Institutions Code § 827 (b) guarantees the confidentiality of Juvenile Court records. The strong state interest in the confidentiality of juvenile proceedings and records has long been recognized. In re Keisha T., 38 Cal App.4th 220, 231, 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 822 (1995). Probably every state in the Union has similar provisions. See Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 311, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974) (quoting Alaska’s provisions); Federal Rule of Evidence 609(d).

Darren Chaker record sealing
Article by Darren Chaker on record sealing and destruction.

The purpose of preserving the confidentiality of juvenile records can be served by permitting inspection by a third party only after an initial in camera inspection by the Juvenile Court. Navajo Express v. Superior Court, 186 Cal.App.3d 981, 985 (1986). In determining whether to authorize the inspection or release of Juvenile Court records, the Juvenile Court must balance the interests of the child and other parties to the Juvenile Court proceedings, the interests of the petitioner, and the interests of the public. The court may permit disclosure of the records only insofar as is necessary, and only if there is a reasonable likelihood the records will disclose information or evidence of substantial relevance to the pending litigation. Cal. Rule of Court 1423(b). One purpose for an in camera inspection is to avoid “fishing expeditions.” Navajo Express, 186 Cal.App.3d at 986.

Darren Chaker also finds that police, prosecutors, and court personnel have the right to Juvenile Court records when “actively participating in criminal or juvenile proceedings involving the minor.” In re Keisha T, supra, 38 Cal App.4th at 232. Only attorneys for police “who are actively participating in criminal or juvenile proceedings involving the minor” are entitled to juvenile court records. Welf. & Inst. Code § 837(a)(1)(E). Another benefit is the Juvenile Court may limit the use of any records it does order disclosed. Cal. R. Ct. 1423(b).

One substantial benefit of confidentiality is that juvenile records may eventually be sealed. This means a person may obtain an order which seals his/her Juvenile Court records “even from inspection by juvenile court personnel, and which requires the destruction of all records pertaining to the case in the custody of ‘any other agencies, including law enforcement agencies, and public officials …..” United States v. County of Los Angeles, 635 F.Supp. 588, 591 (C.D.Cal. 1986), quoting Cal. Welfare & Institutions Code § 781. “[O]nce the juvenile records in a matter are ordered sealed, ‘the proceedings in the case shall be deemed never to have occurred, and the person may properly reply accordingly to any inquiry about the events, the records of which are ordered sealed.”’ Parmett v. Superior Court, 212 Cal.App.3d 1261, 1265,262 Cal.Rptr. 387 (1989). “[I]fan agency receives an inquiry regarding a record which has been sealed, the proper response is ‘[w]e have no record on the named individual,’ even though the record may physically still exist.” Id., at 1266, quoting 40 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 50 (1962). “[E]ven a court is barred from relying on its own knowledge that certain proceedings took place after there has been a sealing.” Id.

How to seal and destroy a California juvenile record is clear, says Darren Chaker. When a court issues an order to seal, agencies must seal juvenile court records in their possession relating to a juvenile status offense or crime, the court must specify the appropriate date for the destruction of the sealed records. (Welf.C. 781(a).) When directing other agencies to seal juvenile court records in their possession relating to dependency, the court must direct the agencies to destroy the sealed records 5 years after sealing. (Welf.C. 389(a).)

Section 781, subdivision (d) provides, “Unless for good cause the court determines that the juvenile court record shall be retained, the court shall order the destruction of a person’s juvenile court records that are sealed pursuant to this section as follows: … when the person who is the subject of the record reaches the age of 38 if the person was alleged or adjudged to be a person described by Section 602, except that if the subject of the record was found to be a person described in Section 602 because of the commission of an offense listed in subdivision (b), of Section 707, when he or she was 14 years of age or older, the record shall not be destroyed.” On remand, the court should determine whether to destroy or retain appellant’s sealed juvenile records in accordance with section 781, subdivision (d).”

California Welfare & Institutions Code § 827 (b) guarantees the confidentiality of Juvenile Court records. The strong state interest in the confidentiality of juvenile proceedings and records has long been recognized. In re Keisha T., 38 Cal App.4th 220, 231, 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 822 (1995). Probably every state in the Union has similar provisions. See Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 311, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974) (quoting Alaska’s provisions); Federal Rule of Evidence 609(d).

Of course, consult an attorney and do not take anything on this site as legal advice. The Orange County Public Defender offers great resources for people wanting to seal and expunge records through its New Leaf Program.

By Darren Chaker

For almost two decades Darren Chaker regularly has worked with defense attorneys and high net worth people on a variety of sensitive issues from Los Angeles to Dubai. With a gift of knowledge about the First Amendment and big firm expertise in brief research and writing, Darren Chaker puts his knowledge to use for law firms and non-profit organizations. When it comes to forensics and social media investigations Darren Chaker has advanced training to connect the dots where issues arise related to Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, or Facebook, Instagram, and similar apps. When the dots need to be disconnected, Darren Chaker has extensive training in counter-forensic methods with an emphasis on network security, secure communications, combined with experience with implementing and deploying policy control, encryption, anonymization, data integrity, policy control features in large scale infrastructures. Additional training in malware analysis, Security Operating system security and hardening (Linux, Windows, Solaris), Firewalls, Intrusion detection systems, hacker, counter-hack methods, encryption, forensics, web application security is also employed for his client base. Since history is written by winners, let me write a bit: In 2005, Darren Chaker invalidated a California criminal statute aimed at suppressing speech. In Chaker v. Crogan, 428 F.3d 1215 C.A.9 (Cal.),2005, Cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1128, 126 S.Ct. 2023, is a case Darren Chaker personally handled and laid the ground work to allow appellate counsel to strike down a statute based on First Amendment rights. Subsequent to winning before the 9th Circuit, the State challenged the decision before the United States Supreme Court. Darren Chaker retained a former US Supreme Court Clerk and head of United States Supreme Court litigation for a major firm, Joshua Rosenkranz. The New York attorney defeated the State's petition to review the Ninth Circuit ruling causing multiple states to rewrite their own flawed statute since they were premised the California statute Darren Chaker struck down. Darren Chaker personally litigated Chaker v. Crogan for 7 of its 10-year lifespan. Darren Chaker’s victory invalidated a statute on First Amendment grounds and overruled the California Supreme Court‘s unanimous decision in People v. Stanistreet, 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 633. Soon after Chaker v. Crogan, it was also used to strike down Nevada's analogous statute forcing the legislature to rewrite the law, but also nullified a similar Washington statute as well. (De La O v. Arnold-Williams, 2006 WL 2781278) and used as the backbone authority in Gibson v. City of Kirkland, 2009 WL 564703, *2+ (W.D.Wash. Mar 03, 2009). The case has been cited hundreds of times and continues to be a leading authority on viewpoint discrimination. In 2010, Darren Chaker prevailed in Nathan Enterprises Corp. v. Chaker, 2010 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 7604, through his counsel Timothy Coates who has prevailed multiple times before the United States Supreme Court. also prevailed for Darren Chaker where the Court of Appeal affirmed an anti-SLAPP ruling where the underlying conduct was found to have been within those protected by his First Amendment rights. In 2012 Darren Chaker prevailed on a First Amendment issue before the Texas Attorney where issued Opinion 2012-06088 where he established the right to obtain the names of peace officers regardless of undercover status. The Texas Attorney General opinion has been used as authority thousands of times by citizens and news agencies to learn more about Texas peace officers. In 2016, Darren Chaker was victorious in US v. Chaker (9th Cir. 2016) 654 F.App'x 891, 892. The ACLU, Electronic Frontier Foundation, First Amendment Coalition, Cato Institute, and the University of Florida reversed a conviction premised on First Amendment rights where blog postings were at issue. In 2017, Darren Chaker prevailed in a RICO lawsuit aimed at suppressing speech filed by San Diego attorney Scott McMillan. In McMillan v. Chaker (S.D.Cal. Sep. 29, 2017, No. 16cv2186-WQH-MDD) 2017 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 163990 the court found by blogging did not constitute extortion as no demand for money to cease blogging was made. The judge found the case to be meritless, stating in part, “The Court concludes that these factual allegations are insufficient to establish that Defendant Darren Chaker obtained something of value from Plaintiffs…. The motion to dismiss the cause of action under 18 U.S.C.§ 1962(c) filed by Defendant Darren Chaker is granted.” In 2020, San Diego attorney Scott McMillan lost a heavily litigated appeal believing the court erred in dismissing his lawsuit against Darren Chaker. Mr. Chaker was represented by former Los Angeles federal judge Stephen Larson. The Ninth Circuit in McMillan v. Chaker (9th Cir. 2020) 791 F.App'x 666, affirmed the dismissal of a RICO lawsuit premised on alleged defamation of Scott McMillan. The court stated in part, “Plaintiffs failed to allege extortionate conduct because there are no allegations that Mr. Chaker obtained property from Plaintiffs that he could “exercise, transfer, or sell. ”See Scheidler, 537 U.S. at 405. Plaintiffs’ claim also fails because there are no allegations to support the “with [Plaintiffs’] consent” element. United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., 770 F.3d at 843.” In sum, Scott McMillan filed a lawsuit in direct conflict with established United States Supreme Court precedent and lost – twice. Also, in 2020, Darren Chaker was sued for defamation by Las Vegas attorney Thomas Michaelides. When Darren Chaker became aware of the lawsuit, he retained Olson, Cannon, Gormley, Angulo & Stoberski to defend him. Darren Chaker found a court order Mr. Michaelides submitted to Google that was reported to LumensDataBase.org. Several inconsistencies were noticed on the court order submitted to Google. Most notably the court docket does not show Mr. Michaelides submitted an order to the court for the judge’s signature. The court docket does not reflect the court ever signed the order Mr. Michaelides submitted to Google. Ultimately, the Nevada court dismissed the lawsuit and sanctioned Mr. Michaelides $51,000 for suing Darren Chaker for conduct within his First Amendment rights and for filing a meritless lawsuit. See forged order and judgment against Thomas Michaelides here. Darren Chaker donates time to post-conviction relief organizations to seal arrests and convictions to increase opportunity for those who were convicted of crimes, conducts research and brief writing on First Amendment issues, and also enjoys promoting non-profit organizations such as the ACLU and various domestic violence shelters through his resources within the entertainment industry, including Jason Statham and Eric Roberts. Darren Chaker also enjoys traveling, being a phenomenal father, and forwarding his education with post graduate degree work.

error: Content is protected !!