Dana Hayes denied rights in firing, leaking of expunged charges
In the court of public opinion, Dana Hayes has been reconvicted of a crime that should no longer be on his record and severely punished for a crime he is not formally suspected of committing.
Mr. Hayes was recently fired from a civilian position within the Baltimore Police Department after officials discovered he was listed on the city’s Gun Offender Registry, even though his charges had been expunged. While speaking at a news conference about Baltimore’s guaranteed income pilot program, officials also told the media that Mr. Hayes was a “person of interest” in a murder case, but quickly clarified that he is not a suspect.
Expungement laws are designed to allow us to move forward with life goals and valuable societal contributions without fear of criminal record stigma and discrimination. As highlighted within a recent Baltimore Sun article about Mr. Hayes’ firing, expungement laws state that it is illegal to view and disclose an expunged record without a court order, and that officials who do so may be subject to dismissal from public service.
Mr. Hayes rightfully expunged his record in accordance with these laws. Nevertheless, he is experiencing widespread shaming and lasting professional consequences related to his legal history because someone accessed and leaked his private information to the media. In short, Mr. Hayes is being illegally subjected to the very consequences that others are due under the law for violating his rights.
Mr. Hayes’ experience also highlights the ways that expungement processes can fail to protect us from rejection and discrimination. Despite the advancements Maryland has made toward expanding expungement opportunities, records that should be erased often remain accessible through private background search databases, specific crime registries, researcher data sets and police department documentation. These loopholes allow for continued privacy invasion and evasion of expungement laws. As we have observed in the case of Mr. Hayes, there also appears to be no enforcement of consequences for violating the privacy promised by Maryland law.
While researchers, policymakers and employers may feel empowered by collecting and holding crime data, such data can do more harm than good and reinforce existing inequities. Studies indicate that mandatory registries have not dissuaded crime nationwide. Furthermore, data collection and interpretation are filtered through the same biases that create injustice and inequalities throughout our society. Our criminal legal system disproportionately monitors, arrests, charges, incarcerates and obstructs the future life opportunities of Black and brown citizens. Baltimore’s Gun Offender Registry and Mr. Haye’s experience reflect this systemic bias and the severe consequences of data surveillance. Ninety-five percent of Gun Offender registrants are Black men. The vastly disproportionate representation of Black men within this registry, coupled with the failure to expediently and completely remove names from this repository, leads to lasting obstruction of critical life opportunities for thousands of Black men in our city.
In addition to the above illegal privacy invasion, Mr. Hayes has now been fired and publicly named in association with a crime he is not formally suspected of committing. The commissioner stated that he is a “person of interest,” but this phrase has no standardized legal meaning and is often used when there is insufficient evidence to formally label someone as a suspect. Still, due to the media’s framing of this issue, public discourse is leaping from hearing Mr. Hayes is a “person of interest” to assuming Mr. Hayes is guilty, without evidence, formal charges, or a trial by jury. Mr. Hayes has been denied his right to presumed innocence.
If our current expungement laws were working, we would not know about Mr. Hayes’ past record. If we were truly adhering to the presumption of innocence, there should be no discussion of current legal investigations, especially when Mr. Hayes is not even a suspect. Where is the justice in any of this? And what happened to Mayor Brandon Scott’s stated commitment to supporting employment for people with a history of legal involvement? Both seem absent from this discussion.