Can an Oregon state auditor look at sealed juvenile expunction judgments to verify that records have actually been removed from the youth offender database, or does the auditor need a court order each time?

Subject

Neal Weatherspoon, CPA, CISA, Office of the Secretary of State, Audits Division

Plain-English summary

The Oregon Youth Authority runs an electronic system called the Juvenile Justice Information System (JJIS) that tracks records about youth offenders. When a juvenile's records are expunged under ORS 419A.262, the underlying record must be sealed (which for JJIS means electronically deleted), but the expunction judgment itself is preserved as a sealed record. The whole point is that the youth can answer that the contact never happened.

The Secretary of State's Audits Division wanted to audit JJIS to make sure that records were actually being sealed correctly. That meant looking at the expunction judgments and comparing them against JJIS. But expunction judgments are statutorily confidential, releasable only by order of the issuing court. Did the auditors need to ask a judge for permission every time, which would be administratively impossible?

The AG concluded no. ORS 419C.001(2) gives the Secretary of State authority to perform effectiveness audits of the programs, policies, and services constituting the juvenile justice system. In 2001, the legislature added a new subsection (3) to ORS 419C.001 that gave the Secretary access to confidential juvenile court records when the Secretary deemed those records necessary to conduct an audit related to the Juvenile Justice System.

The AG read subsection (3) as a general grant of access that override the case-by-case court-order requirement in ORS 419A.262 for audit purposes. The new statute did not eliminate the protections built into ORS 419A.262 (no public release, no use by law enforcement, confidentiality preserved), but it did dispense with the requirement that the auditor go to court each time. The Secretary or a Secretary-selected auditor could access expunction judgments directly, review them as part of the audit, and use them only for audit purposes.

The opinion was practical. Government auditing standards require auditors to verify compliance with the laws governing the audited agency. For JJIS, that meant verifying that expunction was actually happening when the law required it. Without access to the expunction judgments themselves, the auditor couldn't tell whether OYA was complying. The 2001 amendment to ORS 419C.001 was the legislature's way of letting the audit function work without compromising the underlying confidentiality framework.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2002. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Does this opinion mean anyone can look at sealed juvenile records?
No. The access was limited to the Secretary of State and Secretary-selected auditors, and only when the records were deemed necessary for an audit related to the juvenile justice system. The records remained confidential as to everyone else.

Could the auditors share what they learned?
The opinion did not authorize disclosure beyond what was necessary for the audit. The records remained subject to ORS 419A.262's confidentiality protections, with criminal and civil penalties for unauthorized release. An auditor who reviewed an expunction judgment as part of an audit could not then disclose its contents to the public.

Why did the legislature add ORS 419C.001(3)?
Apparently to resolve exactly this kind of access question. Effectiveness audits require auditors to verify compliance. Without statutory authority to access sealed records, auditors would have to go to court each time, which would be impractical and would expose the underlying audits to delay and procedural challenge.

Did the AG say the auditor's access was unlimited?
The AG said the access was for audits "related to the Juvenile Justice System." That qualification preserved the boundary: a Secretary auditor working on something unrelated to the juvenile justice system would not have access to expunction judgments under this authority.

What if the youth's underlying record had been deleted from JJIS already?
The expunction judgment itself was preserved (and sealed) under ORS 419A.262(17) and (22). So even after the underlying JJIS record was deleted, the judgment remained in court files. The auditor could access the judgment to verify that the deletion had occurred.

Could the auditor recreate a deleted JJIS record from the expunction judgment?
The opinion did not authorize that. The point of expunction is that the underlying record is gone. The auditor's role was to verify that deletion had happened, not to undo it. The expunction judgment is evidence that a deletion was required, not a substitute for the deleted record.

Background and statutory framework

The Juvenile Justice Information System (JJIS) is an electronic information system established under ORS 420A.223 and administered by the Oregon Youth Authority. OAR 416-180-0010 sets out its purpose: to promote public safety, youth accountability, juvenile justice system accountability, and youth rehabilitation.

ORS 419A.262 sets the expunction framework. Under subsection (16), an agency that receives a copy of an expunction judgment must expunge the underlying record. Under subsections (19) and (20), the agency must respond to subsequent inquiries by indicating no record exists, and the youth may lawfully assert that the record never existed. Under subsection (17), all juvenile court and juvenile department records subject to the judgment must be expunged, except for the expunction judgment itself, which is sealed. Subsection (22) makes the sealed expunction judgment releasable only by order of the issuing court. Subsections (23) through (25) impose criminal and civil penalties for unauthorized release, including dismissal of a public employee.

OAR 416-140-0040(2) requires that expunged electronic information stored on JJIS be sealed, which the system implements as electronic deletion.

ORS 419C.001(2) authorizes the Secretary of State to perform effectiveness audits of the programs, policies, and services constituting the juvenile justice system. ORS 419C.001(3), added in 2001, authorizes Secretary access to confidential records for audit purposes.

OAR 162-011-0030(4)(b)(C) and (4)(c)(C)(v) reflect generally accepted government auditing standards requiring compliance verification.

Citations

• ORS 419A.262 (expunction of juvenile records)
• ORS 419A.262(17), (22) (sealing of expunction judgment)
• ORS 419A.262(23)-(25) (penalties for unauthorized release)
• ORS 419C.001(2) (Secretary of State juvenile justice audit authority)
• ORS 419C.001(3) (Secretary access to confidential juvenile records for audit purposes)
• ORS 420A.223 (Juvenile Justice Information System)
• OAR 416-140-0040 (sealing of electronic JJIS records)
• OAR 416-180-0010 (JJIS purpose and goals)
• OAR 162-011-0030 (government auditing standards)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.doj.state.or.us/oregon-department-of-justice/office-of-the-attorney-general/attorney-general-opinions/
• Original PDF: https://www.doj.state.or.us/wp-content/uploads/2002/07/op2002-6.pdf

Original opinion text

HARDY MYERS

PETER D. SHEPHERD

Attorney General

Deputy Attorney General

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
GENERAL COUNSEL DIVISION
July 30, 2002

Neal Weatherspoon, CPA, CISA
Office of the Secretary of State
Audits Division
255 Capitol Street NE, Suite 500
Salem, OR 97310
Re:

Opinion Request OP-2002-6

Dear Mr. Weatherspoon:
You ask whether the Secretary of State, or an auditor selected by the Secretary of State,
may obtain and review expunction judgments, which by statute are confidential unless released
by order of the issuing court, for purposes of auditing the Juvenile Justice Information System.
We conclude that under ORS 419C.001(3), the Secretary need not obtain a court order in order to
access and review confidential juvenile court records, including expunction judgments, if the
Secretary deems the records necessary to conduct an audit related to the Juvenile Justice
System.1/
Background
The Juvenile Justice Information System (JJIS) is an electronic information system
established pursuant to ORS 420A.223. This information system is administered by the Oregon
Youth Authority (OYA) and contains information concerning youth offenders in Oregon’s
juvenile justice system.2/ OYA has the responsibility to adopt rules governing the administration
of this electronic system which must address, among other things, “confidentiality of
information,” “[s]tate and county roles and costs,” and “[c]ounty reporting requirements.”
ORS 420A.223(1)(a)-(c).
Pursuant to administrative rules adopted by OYA, “[t]he JJIS system shall comply with
all federal, state, and local laws regarding public information and confidentiality.” OAR 416180-0050. Such laws include ORS 419A.262, which requires expunction of a record relating to a
person’s contact with any law enforcement agency, juvenile court or juvenile department when
an agency subject to an expunction judgment receives a copy of the judgment from the court.
ORS 419A.262(16).3/ Thereafter, upon receiving a request for the expunged records, agencies
subject to the judgment must indicate that no record of the contact exists and the person whose
records have been expunged may lawfully assert that the record never existed and the contact
never occurred. ORS 419A.262(19)(20). All juvenile court and juvenile department records

Neal Weatherspoon, CPA, CISA
July 30, 2002
Page 2

subject to the judgment must be expunged, except for the expunction judgment which is sealed
and remains sealed unless released by order of the issuing court. ORS 419A.262(17) and (22).
A person who releases a record subject to an expunction judgment or information contained in
such a record may be subject to criminal or civil liability and, if a public employee, the release is
cause for dismissal. ORS 419A.262(23)-(25).
OYA administrative rules require that expunged electronic information stored on JJIS be
sealed. OAR 416-140-0040(2). In this context, sealing the record means that it is electronically
deleted from the JJIS system. When OYA receives an expunction judgment, the expunction
coordinator logs receipt of the judgment and then locates the record on JJIS. One of the
electronic menu items on the screen is a button that says “expunction details.” If that button is
selected, another button appears that says “OYA case sealed.” When the coordinator clicks that
button, an electronic message is sent to the issuing court that the judgment has been received.
When the court electronically verifies the expunction judgment, the record is automatically
deleted from the JJIS system.4/
Your question arises in the context of the Secretary’s responsibility under ORS
419C.001(2) to perform effectiveness audits of the “[p]rograms, policies and services”
constituting the juvenile justice system. JJIS is a component “program” in that system which has
as its goal the promotion of “public safety, youth accountability, and juvenile justice system
accountability; and to offer opportunities for rehabilitation to youth.” OAR 416-180-0010.
Generally accepted government auditing standards require a determination of whether an agency
is in compliance with the laws, regulations and other requirements relevant to the agency’s
responsibilities.5/ Specifically, in order to determine whether JJIS is meeting its stated goal,
particularly in the areas of juvenile justice system accountability and youth rehabilitation,
auditing standards require the Secretary to have access to sealed expunction judgments in order
to determine if records on JJIS are appropriately being sealed in accordance with the law,
including ORS 419A.262 and OYA administrative rules. OAR 162-011-0030(4)(b)(C) and
(4)(c)(C)(v). The question is whether applicable law authorizes that access.
Discussion
Your question requires us to analyze the Secretary’s authority to access sealed records for
purposes of conducting an audit pursuant to ORS 419C.001(2). The legislature amended ORS
419C.001 in 2001 by adding a new subsection (3).6/ These amendments require us to interpret
new statutory provisions and to harmonize these new provisions with existing law.
In interpreting a statute, our goal is to discern the intent of the legislature. ORS 174.020;
PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries (PGE), 317 Or 606, 610, 859 P2d 1143 (1993). We
first look at the text of the statute and its context, which includes other provisions of the same
statute, related statutes and prior enactments. Id. at 610-611. In so doing, we consider statutory
and judicially developed rules of construction that bear directly on how to read the text, such as
the rule that “words of common usage typically should be given their plain, natural, and ordinary
meaning.” Id. at 611. Another rule of construction that bears directly on the interpretation of
statutory provisions in context is that “a particular intent shall control a general one that is

Neal Weatherspoon, CPA, CISA
July 30, 2002
Page 3

inconsistent with it.” ORS 174.020(2). In applying this rule, the Supreme Court notes that
statutes should be read together and harmonized, if possible, while giving effect to a consistent
legislative policy. Fairbanks v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 323 Or 88, 94, 913 P2d 703
(1996) (citing State v. Pearson, 250 Or 54, 58, 440 P2d 229 (1968)). Accordingly, the new
provisions must be harmonized with the confidentiality provisions of ORS 419A.262, which
prohibit release of expunged records, including the expunction judgment, except upon order of
the court that issued the judgment.7/
If the legislative intent is clear from the text and context, the analysis ends there. Only if
the legislative intent is not clear from the text and context of the statute will we look to the
legislative history to attempt to discern that intent. PGE, 317 Or at 611-612. If, after
considering text, context and legislative history, the intent of the legislature remains unclear, we
may apply general maxims of statutory construction to resolve any remaining uncertainty as to
the meaning of the statute. Id. at 612.
In 2001, the legislature amended ORS 419C.001 “[t]o facilitate an audit under subsection
(2) of this section.” ORS 419C.001(3) (emphasis added). “Facilitate” means to “make easier or
less difficult: free from difficulty or impediment.” WEBSTER’S THIRD INTERNATIONAL
DICTIONARY 812 (unabridged 1993) (WEBSTER’S). The plain meaning of this portion of
subsection (3) indicates the legislature’s intent to make an audit easier or less difficult for the
Secretary to conduct than it was before the amendments.
The legislature then specifically describes how it will facilitate an audit. First, in
ORS 419C.001(3)(a), the Secretary is authorized to “subpoena witnesses,” “require the
production of books and papers and the rendering of reports” and to “do all things necessary to
secure a full and thorough investigation.” “Require” means “to impose a compulsion or
command upon (as a person) to do something: demand of (one) that something be done or some
action taken: enjoin, command, or authoritatively insist (that someone do something).”
WEBSTER’S at 1929. On its face, this subsection imposes no restrictions on the Secretary’s
access to confidential information.
Subsection (3)(b) goes on to require that the custodian of information the Secretary
“deems necessary” to conduct the audit provide “access to the information notwithstanding the
fact that the information may be made confidential or access restricted by ORS 419A.255 or
another law.” ORS 419C.001(3)(b)(emphasis added). As the Supreme Court stated in O’Mara
v. Douglas County, 318 Or 72, 76, 862 P2d 499 (1993), “[t]he function of a ‘notwithstanding’
clause in the statute is to except the remainder of the sentence containing the clause from other
provisions of a law that is referenced in that particular notwithstanding clause.” In ORS
419C.001(3)(b), the remainder of the sentence requires the custodian to provide the Secretary
access to information the Secretary deems necessary for an audit. The notwithstanding clause
creates an exception to the confidentiality or limited access restrictions of ORS 419A.255 or
another law.

Neal Weatherspoon, CPA, CISA
July 30, 2002
Page 4

This requires us to determine whether ORS 419A.262 is another law as that term is used
in ORS 419C.001(3)(b). First, to qualify as “another law” in the context in which that phrase is
used in subsection (3)(b), ORS 419A.262 must make information confidential or it must restrict
access to information. The statute does both by requiring destruction or sealing of certain
juvenile records and by limiting access to those records except by court order. What is not clear
is whether the term “another law” applies broadly to any statute or administrative rule that makes
information confidential or restricts access to information – see e.g., ORS 137.225 (statutory
action to seal adult conviction records) – or if it should be more narrowly construed. Under the
doctrine of ejusdem generis, when the legislature uses both a general standard and a list of
specifics, the specifics may narrow the scope of the general standard to matters of the same type.
State v. K.P, 324 Or 1, 11 n 6, 921 P2d 380 (1996) (citing Bellikka v. Green, 306 Or 630, 636,
762 P.2d 997 (1988)). In the context of the laws at issue here, this doctrine would narrow the
meaning of “another law” to one in which the confidential information is of the same kind as the
information referred to in ORS 419A.255. On the other hand, where specifics are included by
way of example, the general proposition controls and is not narrowed by the examples. See
Quintero v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, 329 Or 319, 325, 986 P2d 575
(1999).
For purposes of this analysis, it is unnecessary to determine whether “another law” has a
broader meaning because we conclude that the information referred to in ORS 419A.262 is the
same kind as that referred to in ORS 419A.255. ORS 419A.255 generally makes the information
in juvenile records confidential, with certain narrow exceptions. It also limits access to juvenile
records to those persons designated by statute or by the court. ORS 419A.262 also relates to the
confidentiality of juvenile records. It establishes a process for making certain juvenile records
even more confidential by expunging or sealing them, and then limits access to such records.
Because both statutes relate to the confidentiality of and access to juvenile records, they relate to
the same kind of information and under the doctrine of ejusdem generis, ORS 419A.262 is
“another law” as that term is used in ORS 419C.001(3)(b).
We also note that in keeping with the confidentiality requirements of ORS 419A.255 and
419A.262, the legislature has strictly limited the use and disclosure of confidential information
obtained by the Secretary under ORS 419C.001(3). The information may be used solely for the
purpose of performing the audit and may not be used or disclosed for any other purpose. This
further supports a conclusion that in order to facilitate an audit of a program related to the
Juvenile Justice System, the legislature created an exception to the confidentiality restrictions for
obtaining access to juvenile records, but set strict restrictions on the use and disclosure of the
information in order to protect its confidential status.
ORS 419A.262 was in effect when the legislature amended ORS 419C.001.8/ The
legislature is presumed to know of existing law when it enacts new legislation. See City of
Salem v. Salisbury, 168 Or App 14, 34, 5 P3d 1131 (2000), rev den 331 Or 633 (2001). We
conclude from review of the statute’s text and context that, in order to facilitate the Secretary’s
ability to perform audits of all the programs, policies and services of the juvenile justice system,
the legislature intended to include ORS 419A.262 as “another law” under ORS 419C.001(3)(b).9/
This interpretation harmonizes ORS 419A.262 and ORS 419C.001 and gives effect to both by

Neal Weatherspoon, CPA, CISA
July 30, 2002
Page 5

requiring the custodian of confidential records to provide information to the Secretary for the
limited purpose of conducting an audit, while still protecting the confidentiality of the records
from use for any other purpose.
Conclusion
We conclude from its text and context that ORS 419C.001(3)(a) authorizes the Secretary
to command production of books and papers that are otherwise made confidential and to which
access is otherwise restricted under ORS 419A.262, including expunction judgments. ORS
419C.001(3)(b) further requires the custodian of such information to comply with that command
without a court order, by both acknowledging the existence of an expunction judgment and by
allowing access to the judgment.
Sincerely,

Donald C. Arnold
Chief Counsel
General Counsel Division
DCA:DNH:SC:naw/GENC1590
1/

In using the phrase “the Secretary” we refer both to the Secretary of State or an auditor
appointed by the Secretary of State to perform an audit.
2/

ORS 419A.004(33) defines a “youth offender” as “a person at least 12 years of age who has
been found to be within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court under ORS 419C.005 for an act committed
when the person was under 18 years of age.”
3/

“Expunction” as defined in ORS 419A.260(1)(b), means the destruction or sealing of all
records, references, judgments or orders related to a contact. For records kept by OYA, expunction
means the record is sealed, not destroyed, or if the record is contained in a multi-person file, the outside of
the file is marked with information concerning the expunction judgment. ORS 419A.260(1)(b)(B). A
“contact” includes any act or behavior of a person under the age of 18 that comes to the attention of law
enforcement, a juvenile court or department, or a state agency and could result in juvenile court
jurisdiction for behavior that endangers the person or others, or for an act that if committed by an adult
would be a crime. ORS 419A.260(1)(a). For purposes of expunction, ORS 419A.260(1)(d) defines
“record” to include “a fingerprint or photograph file, report, exhibit or other material which contains
information relating to a person’s contact with any law enforcement agency or juvenile court or juvenile
department * * *.” The definition specifically excludes certain records such as an academic transcript,
medical records, traffic or wildlife offense convictions, and records related to certain types of offenses.
ORS 419A.260(1)(d)(A) to (L).
4/

When paper records are expunged, OYA seals but does not destroy the records and keeps the
file in a secure facility. OYA will respond to inquiries about an expunged record by saying that “No
record of contacts exists” unless ordered by a court to release the information or unless the information is

Neal Weatherspoon, CPA, CISA
July 30, 2002
Page 6

needed for administrative purposes such as an audit or preparation for legal action and lawfully may be
used for those purposes. OAR 416-140-0010(2)(a) and 416-110-0000(5)(a).
5/

Government Auditing Standards, often referred to as generally accepted government auditing
standards (GAGAS), are issued by the Comptroller of the United States. The Secretary has adopted
GAGAS field work and reporting standards for governmental performance audits. OAR 162-011-0030.
6/

As enacted by Oregon Laws 2001, Chapter 904, section 16 (SB 384), section (3) of ORS
419C.001 provides:
(3) To facilitate an audit under subsection (2) of this section:
(a) The Secretary of State may subpoena witnesses, require the production of
books and papers and the rendering of reports in such manner and form as the Secretary
of State requires and may do all things necessary to secure a full and thorough
investigation.
(b) The custodian of information that the Secretary of State deems necessary to
conduct the audit shall provide the Secretary of State or the auditor selected by the
Secretary of State access to the information notwithstanding the fact that the information
may be made confidential or access to the information restricted by ORS 419A.255 or
another law. Information obtained by the Secretary or State or the auditor pursuant to this
paragraph and made confidential by ORS 419A.255 or another law may be used by the
Secretary of State, the officers and employees of the Secretary of State or the auditor
solely for the purpose of performing the audit required by subsection (2) of this section
and may not be used or disclosed for any other purpose.
7/

The relevant confidentiality provisions of ORS 419A.262 provide:

(19) Upon entry of an expunction judgment, the contact which is the subject of
the expunged record shall not be disclosed by any agency. An agency that is subject to
an expunction judgment shall respond to any inquiry about the contact by indicating that
no record or reference concerning the contact exists.

(22) An expunction judgment and list of complying and noncomplying agencies
shall be released from confidentiality only on order of the court originating the
expunction judgment, based on a finding that review of a particular case furthers
compliance with the expunction provisions of this chapter.
8/

Prior to the amendments to ORS 419C.001, the Secretary was authorized to obtain
access to sealed expunction judgments by obtaining a court order. Under ORS 419A.262(22),
expunction judgments can be released from confidentiality upon order of the originating court.
But this is a cumbersome process and may require the Secretary to obtain a court order for each
individual expunction judgment he wants to review. The Secretary, through legal counsel, would
be required to file the appropriate legal documents, provide notice to the affected person, and
appear for hearing if the person objects. ORS 419C.001(3) facilitates the audit process by

Neal Weatherspoon, CPA, CISA
July 30, 2002
Page 7

enabling the Secretary to obtain this information without the cost, in time and money, of seeking
court orders.
9/

ORS 419C.001(3)(b) also creates an exception to the imposition of civil or criminal
penalties under ORS 419A.262(23) to (25) for release of expunged records or confidential
information concerning expunged records, including a sealed expunction judgment. A custodian
who complies with a command from the Secretary to produce information concerning expunged
records or a sealed expunction judgment is not subject to civil or criminal liability because the
custodian is authorized by ORS 419C.001(3)(b) to release confidential records or information to
the Secretary.