Depending on your jurisdiction, it could be a simple form processed without a hearing or you may have to do a motion (custom pleadings), appearing in person and telling the court how long it has been since the judgment in question.
I need more info to help you specifically: is it a criminal matter? if so, was it a juvenile matter? a family court matter? is it a financial matter? some records are not expungable some are. Different courts have different rules.
A typical example is removing a record of an old DUI from the public view so that you can get a decent rate on auto insurance and so that prospective employers do not prejudice themselves by looking at that old record and considering you a high risk, because a DUI is technically a "criminal" record.
This is fairly easy to do if it has been a year or two since the DUI and you have a clean driving record since the DUI. There can be no outstanding probation requirements for that, for instance, if you were ordered to diversion (usually traffic school), you must prove to the court that you completed it (school signed off and you filed that paperwork with the court on time.)
One last proviso: you can remove it but it is still there. If you have another case in the same court, the judge can look up the old case.
We'll use our proprietary tools to identify every occurrence of your arrest information online. This involves identifying every site on which your jail record, mugshot photo and/or arrest info appear. Based on the results of this analysis, we will then formulate the best possible approach to get your arrest record and mugshot removed from all the sites that have published it as quickly as possible. Once this is complete we will de-index the links from Google Search, Bing Search and Yahoo Search so that links to the mugshot websites no longer shows up on search results when your name is searched for. This also will also get your arrest photo off Image Search Engines such as Google Images.
More over we use advanced search engine marketing tools to ensure any and all traces of your criminal record and/or arrest mugshot is entirely erased from internet searches like Google and Bing.
Public records are generated in numerous ways – from buying a house, registering to vote, having a phone listing, to filing business records. These records are generated and then stored in a number of places – county auditor offices, recorders offices, secretary of state files, directories and many other places, including, of course, on the internet. A number of states and agencies are working to limit access to, or remove altogether, personal information, such as social security numbers, from these records. The records themselves, however, are public. Documents such as deeds, liens, and court files have always been public; it is the advent of the internet that has generated the ability to search these records from anywhere that has made people so concerned. What used to involve a trip to the courthouse or to a county office now often requires just a few minutes at the computer.
As with most things, there are positives and negatives about having all this information so readily available. People worry about their privacy when records are readily accessible. However, the ability to check on others whom you may want to hire as a contractor, retain as a lawyer or perhaps have a relationship with is of vital importance. Then there is also the ability to see what houses are selling for in your area or in an area you are interested in moving to – seeing the records for oneself helps provide key information and removes some of the dependency on relying on others, such as mortgage brokers, to make important decisions. For documents to not be made public requires legislative authority.
People around the globe in the modern age have acquired a painless reach to convenient digital platforms which they can use to comment positive or negative about any person or brand. The scenario that made the customers more powerful and brands more vulnerable to sudden fame or defames has caused unrest among the brands.
Online Reputation Management companies are a saviour in this time when the already large internet user base is expanding and is making the brands more exposed. Only the brands who have the skills and sources to use this surge of opportunities can avail the supernormal benefits gained from high positive visibility.
Can I clear an arrest from my record?
It depends. Some arrests can never be cleared,
including arrests for sex-related crimes and
drivers license suspensions.
Are there other requirements to clear an
arrest from my record?
Yes. You must also meet these requirements:
• You had no felony convictions during the 5-
year period before your arrest.
• You were released after your arrest and not
charged or convicted of a crime.
• You have never been under community
supervision for a sex-related crime for this
• Your arrest was not part of a “criminal
episode,” and you have never been charged for
any other crime as a part of a criminal episode.
What if I was convicted, but appealed
If you won your appeal and you meet all other
requirements, you are eligible to have the arrest
cleared from your record.
How do I ask the Court to clear my record?
• Fill out a court form, called Petition to Clear
• Sign the form in front of a Notary, then make
• Submit an official record of your fingerprints.
(The clerk’s office can tell you how to do this.)
• File the Petition to Clear Record and your
fingerprints in the same county where you
• Go to a court hearing. (The clerk will give you
the date when you file your Petition.)
Do I have to fill out any other court forms?
Yes. You must also fill out a court form, called
Order to Clear Record. Take it to your hearing.
If the judge agrees to clear the arrest from your
record, s/he will sign the Order. Then, the court
clerk will send a certified copy of the Order to
return or destroy all records about this arrest.
Will my court record be destroyed?
No. But the Court will not allow anyone to see or
use your old record again. It is a misdemeanor to
violate the Court Order.
If my record is cleared do I have to tell
anyone about the arrest?
No, unless you are under oath in a criminal
proceeding about the arrest. But, you can explain
that the arrest was cleared from your record.
Do I have to go to Court to
clear the record?
Yes. You must go to a court hearing so a judge
can decide your case. Any of the people and
agencies listed in your Petition may go to your
hearing, too. If they do not want your record
cleared, they can tell the judge at your hearing.
When will the hearing take place?
The hearing will be at least 30 days after you file
your Petition. The court will send you a notice with
the exact date, time, and location of your hearing.
Do I have to give notice to anyone?
Yes. You must send a copy of the Petition to the
District Attorney. Send it by certified mail, return
receipt requested. Keep the receipt
or mailing of your records.
Will the Court automatically approve
No. The Court will not approve your Petition if:
You do not meet the requirements, or
If an official or agency opposes your Petition,
and the judge agrees with their opinion.
How can I prove my record was cleared?
If the court approves your Petition, everyone listed
on your Petition will be ordered to remove the
arrest from your record. [Should they ask for a
record check to confirm record is cleared?]
Much of the current conversation about online reputation focuses
on awareness of potential risks and mitigation
of any negative impacts that might occur.
Reputational risks are often contextual, in that information that is
appropriate in one context can be inappropriate in another context,
where it can cause reputational harm.
A common example would be party photos of intoxicated
individuals that were shared among friends but end up being viewed by current or potential employers. For example, a U.S. teacher lost her job because of a holiday
photo on Facebook showing her holding a glass of wine in one hand and a
glass of beer in the other.
With increasing frequency, online reputations factor into real-world decisions affecting individuals. For example, decisions such as the granting of credit or admission to an academic program may be made based on outdated, inaccurate or incomplete online information.
To make matters worse, individuals are largely unaware of how
online information may be limiting their opportunities because the decision-making process for many of these important decisions is currently not transparent.
Reputation management services have long advised individuals to do regular searches on their names in order to be aware of negative search results and be in a position to mitigate reputational damage. Various strategies have been developed for “optimizing” search results so that positive results rise to the top. However, reputation management is a time-consuming and costly process requiring technical and/or financial resources that may be
beyond the reach of the average person.
Moreover, the increasing personalization15 of the search process means that two individuals searching on the same name will likely get different results. This further complicates
efforts to influence search results. Once an online reputation has been tarnished by negative content, it is difficult to rehabilitate. The permanence of online information means that time does not erase past misdeeds and poor decisions. Following the 2011 Stanley Cup riots in Vancouver, law enforcement asked the public to provide photos and video, which they
posted online and solicited the public’s help in identifying suspects.
The individuals identified as rioters may not have been ever charged or found guilty at all, and those who were actually convicted will continue to be associated with this event long after they have repaid their debt to society, potentially affecting many aspects of
their lives, including future employability.
Damage to reputation can be exacerbated when personal information that would otherwise have remained in the shadows is given prominence through search engines.
In May 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled22 that search engines must offer all Europeans the opportunity to request the removal of
search results that link to information about them that is “inadequate, irrelevant, or no longer relevant.” The decision came as a result of a case involving a Spanish man who objected when a Google search on his name returned links to newspaper stories mentioning past financial
debts he had long since repaid.
He believed those details about his life were no longer relevant but were affecting his reputation. The CJEU’s ruling is referred to as the “right to be forgotten” though in actual fact the information at issue is not deleted. The ruling affects only search engine results and allows the original information to remain on the website where it was posted.
To reflect the fact that the offending information remains online, some
commentators 23 have argued that instead of erasure, the CJEU ruling gives individuals a way of controlling access to their personal information by making it more difficult to find. In the words of Isabelle Falque-Pierrotin, the head of France’s Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL) as well as the Article 29 Working Party, the right to be forgotten “gives the possibility to each of us not to alter the past but to have the possibility to control a little bit what we have done in the past and their digital appearance.
Google reported25 receiving over 351,000 take-down requests covering over 1.2
million URLs. It removed links in almost 42% of cases.
According to its website, Google takes into account a number of considerations in deciding whether to comply with a takedown request:
We must balance the privacy rights of the individual with interests that speak in favour of the
accessibility of information including the public’s interest to access to information,
as well as the webmaster’s right to distribute information.
When evaluating requests, we will look at whether the
search results in question include outdated or irrelevant information about the data subject, as well as whether there’s a public interest in the information.26
Google’s process was informed by the Article 29 Working Party’s guidelines for implementing the right to be forgotten decision, which includes considerations such as:
Is the data subject a public figure?
Was the content voluntarily made public by the data subject?
Could the data subject have reasonably known that the content would be made public?
Does the data have a disproportionately negative privacy impact on the individual?
Does the search result link to information that puts the data subject at risk?
Google has been criticized for not being more transparent about how it goes about balancing privacy with the public interest, as well as the lack of a recourse mechanism and independent oversight. Its role as the de facto decision-maker of these value-laden societal issues has been criticized by many. Google itself has admitted28 to struggling with implementing the ruling and had convened an Advisory Council to Google on the Right to Be Forgotten to gather expert opinions on how best to balance a person’s right to be forgotten
with the public’s right to information.
The right to be forgotten should not be confused with the right to erasure
under the EU General Data Protection Regulation.
30 The right to erasure requires the data processor to delete data if it is no longer required for
processing, if the data subject has withdrawn consent,
or if the processing violates any other provision of the Regulation.
Unlike the right to be forgotten, which only affect search engines, the right to erasure places