Minnesota’s Clean Slate Act did something almost nobody expected a government program to do on schedule: it actually ran. The Bureau of Criminal Apprehension reports that of 2,026,769 records identified as potentially eligible, 1,888,375 have been expunged and another 107,841 are in final Judicial Branch review — 98.493 percent of the total, as of July 14, 2026. The BCA began sealing records in its Criminal History System in June 2025 and expects the remaining individual-review cases to be finished before the end of 2026.
So you’d think the petition practice is dead. It isn’t, and the reason sits in the part of the statute nobody reads.
A grant of automatic expungement relief under Minn. Stat. § 609A.015 is materially narrower than an expungement order a judge signs after a petition. It leaves three specific holes. It doesn’t reach records held by the health and human services agencies. It doesn’t seal your record from view in other states. And as of August 1, 2026, the BCA can unilaterally unseal a record it later decides didn’t qualify. For a lot of people the right question isn’t “am I eligible for automatic expungement,” but “am I eligible for automatic expungement and should I petition anyway.”
What did Clean Slate actually seal, and when?
Section 609A.015 took effect January 1, 2025. The enacting session law says so expressly, and it made the section retroactive:
This section is effective January 1, 2025, and applies to offenses that meet the eligibility criteria on or after that date and retroactively to offenses that met those qualifications before January 1, 2025, and are stored in the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension’s criminal history system as of January 1, 2025.
That retroactivity clause is the whole reason the program touched two million records instead of a trickle of new dispositions. Watch the limiting words, too: stored in the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension’s criminal history system. The BCA says plainly that it doesn’t hold records for low-level offenses that never resulted in an arrest, so those never get into the automatic pipeline at all.
There are three eligibility buckets, and they aren’t equally generous.
Dismissals and exonerations (subd. 1). A person is eligible without filing anything if the person was arrested and all charges were dismissed after a case was filed (unless dismissal rested on a finding of incompetency to proceed), on dismissal and discharge under § 152.18, subd. 1, for certain controlled-substance possession offenses, or if all pending actions were “resolved in favor of the person.” The statute then settles a question the Supreme Court had already answered: a verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness is not a resolution in favor of the person. That was the actual holding of State v. Ambaye, 616 N.W.2d 256 (Minn. 2000), where the court held a not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity verdict did not satisfy the statutory threshold for a presumption of expungement. The legislature has since written Ambaye into the text.
Diversion and stays of adjudication (subd. 2). Eligible after successful completion plus one year without a new petition or charge, other than a petty misdemeanor, and only for a qualifying offense that isn’t a felony.
Convictions (subd. 3). This is where the waiting periods live, and they’re short enough to surprise people:
- Petty misdemeanor — two years since discharge of the sentence
- Misdemeanor — two years since discharge of the sentence
- Gross misdemeanor — three years since discharge of the sentence
- Felony violation of § 152.025 (fifth-degree controlled substance) — four years since discharge
- Any other qualifying felony — five years since discharge
The waiting period runs from discharge of the sentence, not from the offense date and not from sentencing. A long probation term pushes the whole clock back.
Subdivision 3 defines “qualifying offense” by exclusion: every petty misdemeanor other than a traffic-regulation violation, every misdemeanor except a list of ten, every gross misdemeanor except a list of twenty-one, and the felonies enumerated in § 609A.02, subd. 3, paragraph (b), minus five carve-outs. Those exclusion lists are long, offense-specific, and cross-referenced by statute number. Read them in the statute, not in a summary, and that includes this one. The excluded categories cluster around domestic violence, harassment and stalking, assault, privacy invasion, impaired driving above the fourth degree, and indecent exposure.
Here’s a trap that catches practitioners. Section 609A.015, subd. 3(d) provides that felonies “deemed to be” a gross misdemeanor or misdemeanor under § 609.13, subd. 1, remain ineligible under this section, and an ineligible gross misdemeanor stays ineligible even when deemed a misdemeanor under § 609.13, subd. 2. So take a felony where imposition of the prison sentence was stayed, the defendant served probation, and the defendant was discharged without a prison sentence. That’s deemed a misdemeanor under § 609.13, subd. 1(2), and it’s still a felony for automatic-expungement purposes. It may still be petition-eligible under § 609A.02, subd. 3(a)(7), which names exactly that scenario.
Why is a court order stronger than an automatic grant?
The agency carve-out
All three automatic-eligibility subdivisions end with the same sentence:
An expungement order does not apply to records held by the commissioners of children, youth, and families; health; and human services.
If you work — or want to work — in child care, long-term care, health care, direct support, or any other setting that requires a background study under § 245C.08, Clean Slate doesn’t touch the record that background study reads. Same goes for the Professional Educator Licensing and Standards Board check required under § 122A.18, subd. 8. The statute’s own notice provision, § 609A.015, subd. 4(c), says exactly this and tells the recipient the fix: file a petition under § 609A.03 to reach those agencies. Under § 609A.03, subd. 7a(b)(4)–(5), a petitioned order defeats the background-study and educator-licensing exceptions only when the commissioner was properly served and the order is directed specifically to that commissioner. Serving the agency and drafting the order to name it isn’t a formality. It’s the whole difference.
If your interest in expungement is employment or licensure, read this alongside our guide to Minnesota’s criminal-history hiring restrictions under chapter 364.
The out-of-state gap
Minnesota participates in the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact. The BCA’s position, stated on its own expungement page, is that under the Compact a record remains visible in other states unless a petition is filed and the court orders the record at the BCA sealed from view in other states.
That’s the single biggest thing on this page. An automatic grant hides the record from Minnesota public view. A multistate background check run by an out-of-state employer, an out-of-state licensing board, or a national screening vendor pulling from an interstate channel can still turn it up. If your work, your license, or your housing search crosses a state line, an automatic grant isn’t the end of the analysis.
The new unsealing power
The 2026 Legislature amended § 609A.015, subd. 5. Laws 2026, chapter 70, section 5 adds a new paragraph (f):
If the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension subsequently determines that a sealed record did not qualify for expungement relief under this section, the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension shall unseal the record and notify the judicial branch. Upon notification, the judicial branch shall unseal all records relating to an arrest, indictment or information, trial, verdict, or dismissal and discharge. The Bureau of Criminal Apprehension shall make this determination based only on a record stored in the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension’s criminal history system.
Chapter 70 was signed May 5, 2026. Section 5 carries no effective-date clause of its own — the effective-date clause in that chapter attaches to section 4 — so it took effect August 1, 2026 under the default rule in Minn. Stat. § 645.02, which provides that an act “takes effect on August 1 next following its final enactment, unless a different date is specified in the act.”
What that means in practice: an automatic seal can be taken back administratively. A petitioned order is a judgment. There’s no comparable provision letting the BCA rescind a court’s expungement order on its own determination.
What can never be expunged?
Minn. Stat. § 609A.02, subd. 4 is one sentence, and it’s absolute:
Records of a conviction of an offense for which registration is required under section 243.166 may not be expunged.
Separately, § 609A.03, subd. 5a carries a consequence people don’t see coming. An order expunging a conviction for a crime of violence as defined in § 624.712, subd. 5 must provide that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive a firearm for life — unless the person later obtains federal relief under 18 U.S.C. § 925 or restoration under § 609.165, subd. 1d. Expungement isn’t restoration of firearm rights, and the order itself says so. If firearms eligibility is the real goal, that’s a different proceeding; see our discussion of the firearms and cannabis-use analysis after Hemani.
When should you petition instead of waiting?
Petition eligibility under § 609A.02, subd. 3 overlaps the automatic categories but isn’t identical, and the standard differs sharply depending on which door you came through.
The default standard is hostile. Section 609A.03, subd. 5(a) calls expungement
an extraordinary remedy to be granted only upon clear and convincing evidence that it would yield a benefit to the petitioner commensurate with the disadvantages to the public and public safety of … sealing the record; and … burdening the court and public authorities to issue, enforce, and monitor an expungement order.
But paragraph (b) flips it. If the petition is under § 609A.02, subd. 3(a)(1) — all proceedings resolved in the petitioner’s favor — or clause (2) — successful diversion or stay of adjudication — then the court shall grant the petition unless the affected agency proves by clear and convincing evidence that the public interest outweighs the disadvantage to the petitioner. The petitioner carries nothing. The government carries clear and convincing evidence.
That’s the sharpest divide in the chapter. A dismissed case and a five-year-old conviction get litigated under opposite burdens, in the same courtroom, under the same section number.
Where the balancing applies, subdivision 5(c) lists twelve factors the court “shall consider,” including the nature and severity of the offense, time elapsed, rehabilitation, employment and housing needs, the petitioner’s record, recommendations of law enforcement and of victims, and outstanding restitution. Two of the twelve reward preparation more than the rest: clause (6), the reasons for expungement including documented attempts to obtain employment or housing, and clause (11), restitution — amount outstanding, past payment efforts, and the mechanism for completing payment after an order issues. Rejected applications and a restitution payoff plan are exhibits. Adjectives aren’t.
Subdivision 6a doesn’t get used enough. If the court finds under clause (5) that the context and circumstances show a nexus between the record and the petitioner’s own status as a crime victim, the order restores the petitioner “to the status the person occupied before the arrest, indictment, or information,” and the person isn’t guilty of perjury for failing to acknowledge the case. The court may request a sworn statement from a state-funded victim services organization or a licensed health care provider to support that finding.
Are there routes that require no petition and no waiting?
Three, and they’re easy to miss.
Mistaken identity — § 609A.017. If a prosecutor determines before conviction that the defendant was cited, charged, indicted, or prosecuted as the result of mistaken identity, the prosecutor must dismiss and must state in writing or on the record that mistaken identity is the reason. The court then “shall issue an order of expungement without the filing of a petition.” An order under this section isn’t subject to the § 609A.025 or § 609A.03, subd. 5 standards at all, and — this one’s unique — it isn’t subject to the limitations in § 609A.03, subd. 7a or subd. 9, meaning no automatic 60-day stay. A criminal justice agency that wants back in has to get an ex parte order on a good-faith showing.
Prosecutor agreement — § 609A.025. If the prosecutor agrees to sealing, the court shall seal a record described in § 609A.02, subd. 3 without any petition, unless it finds the public interest in keeping the record public outweighs the disadvantage of not sealing. The prosecutor must first make a good-faith effort to notify identifiable victims. Paragraph (c) permits that agreement in a diversion or stay-of-adjudication case before or after charges are dismissed. That makes expungement something you can negotiate into the disposition itself instead of a motion you bring years later.
Pardon extraordinary — § 609A.035. When the Board of Pardons grants a pardon under § 638.17, it files a copy with the district court of the county of conviction, and the court issues a sealing order without a petition.
What about cannabis records?
There are two separate mechanisms. Under § 609A.055, the BCA automatically expunges non-felony cannabis records — dismissals and discharges under § 152.18, subd. 1; convictions or stayed sentences under § 152.027, subd. 3 or 4; and certain pre-probable-cause dismissals and favorable resolutions of enumerated controlled-substance charges. The BCA reports it finished that sweep of its Criminal History System in May 2024 and will review the system again in 2026 to catch records that were still in the court process at the time.
Section 609A.055 is drafted more generously than § 609A.015 in ways that matter. Subdivision 3(h) provides that the limitations in § 609A.03, subd. 7a(b) do not apply. Subdivision 3(i) guarantees the subject access to copies of arrest, conviction, and incarceration records “for any purposes, including immigration purposes,” and subdivision 3(e) requires the BCA to post public guidance telling noncitizens they may need those copies and should consult an immigration attorney. Subdivision 3(j) preserves the right to seek postconviction relief under § 590.01.
Felony-level cannabis records go to the Cannabis Expungement Board under § 609A.06. The board reviews eligible convictions and stayed adjudications, and § 609A.06, subd. 7(a) runs the presumption the other way from ordinary expungement: an expungement under that section “is presumed to be in the public interest unless there is clear and convincing evidence that an expungement or resentencing to a lesser offense would create a risk to public safety.” Where the board concludes expungement isn’t in the public interest, it must consider resentencing to a lesser offense instead. The board has to report to the legislature by January 15 each year until it finishes its work.
Does an expunged record still show up on background checks?
Often. And Minnesota gives you a claim when it does.
Minn. Stat. § 332.70 governs “business screening services,” defined as persons regularly engaged in collecting, assembling, evaluating, or disseminating criminal records on individuals for a fee. Subdivision 3a is one sentence:
If a business screening service knows that a criminal record has been sealed, expunged, or is the subject of a pardon, the screening service shall promptly delete the record.
Subdivision 3 requires a free reinvestigation on dispute, deletion if the record is found to be sealed, expunged, or pardoned, and notice to the consumer within 30 days. Subdivision 2 requires that any disseminated record reflect the complete and accurate record from the source, updated within 30 days of receipt or verified with the source within the previous 90 days. And subdivision 5(a) supplies the remedy: $1,000 or actual damages, whichever is greater, plus costs, disbursements, and reasonable attorney fees. Subdivision 5(b) treats FCRA compliance as compliance with the section but expressly subjects those entities to the state remedy when their conduct would violate both.
Two more provisions close the loop on the employer and landlord side. Section 609A.05 provides that a landlord or employer “does not have a duty to discover or use a record that has been expunged under this chapter or other law” for a housing or employment decision. And § 609A.03, subd. 5(e) bars introducing information about an expunged criminal history record — expunged before the act giving rise to the suit — as evidence in a civil action against a private employer or landlord based on the conduct of the employee or tenant. Put together, those answer the negligent-hiring and negligent-leasing worry decision-makers raise. The law takes away both the duty to look and the evidentiary hook.
What if a government agency opens the record anyway?
Section 609A.04 is the enforcement provision, and it’s short:
An individual whose record is expunged under this chapter or other law may bring an action under section 13.08 against a government entity that knowingly opens or exchanges the expunged record in a manner not authorized by law.
Section 13.08, subd. 1 makes a violating government entity liable for damages sustained plus costs and reasonable attorney fees, and for a willful violation adds exemplary damages of not less than $1,000 and not more than $15,000 for each violation, with the state deemed to have waived immunity. Subdivision 2 authorizes injunctive relief. For the mechanics of getting the underlying records that prove that kind of claim, see our guide to Minnesota Government Data Practices Act requests under § 13.04.
If the underlying case ended in an exoneration finding, note that § 609A.015, subd. 1(b) and § 609A.02, subd. 3(a)(1) both treat an order under § 590.11 as a resolution in the person’s favor. That’s the doorway both to the favorable burden and to compensation for wrongful imprisonment.
Where does a judge’s power end?
Outside the statute, at the courthouse door. In State v. M.D.T., 831 N.W.2d 276 (Minn. 2013) (No. A11-1285), the Minnesota Supreme Court held that a district court did not have inherent authority to expunge M.D.T.’s criminal records held in the executive branch. The court noted it had “never held that the judiciary’s inherent authority to order expungement extends to records held in the executive branch,” citing State v. S.L.H., 755 N.W.2d 271 (Minn. 2008), Ambaye, and earlier cases. The reason was separation of powers: recognizing that authority would override legislative policy judgments about which records are public.
That’s why chapter 609A matters so much. The BCA’s records, the arresting agency’s records, the prosecutor’s file — the parts of the record that actually drive a background check — can be reached only because the legislature said so. If your theory of relief lives outside the statute, M.D.T. is the wall you hit.
Timing details that decide cases
Several different 60-day periods run through this chapter, and they’re easy to mix up:
- A hearing on a petition is held no sooner than 60 days after service of the petition. § 609A.03, subd. 4.
- An expungement order under § 609A.03 is automatically stayed for 60 days after filing, and during any appeal; an affected agency has 60 days from service of notice of filing to appeal, without a cost or supersedeas bond. § 609A.03, subd. 9.
- Under the automatic process, the BCA seals its records 60 days after notice is sent to the judicial branch, unless a judicial-branch order prohibits sealing or new information shows ineligibility. § 609A.015, subd. 5(c).
The petition filing fee is the ordinary civil filing fee under § 357.021, subd. 2, clause (1) — $310 — waivable for indigency and required to be waived where the petition is under § 609A.02, subd. 3(a)(1), the resolved-in-your-favor category. § 609A.03, subd. 1.
Last, § 609A.03, subd. 2 requires the petition to be signed under oath and to disclose every legal name and alias, every address since the offense date, the complete conviction and charge history in Minnesota and elsewhere including continued-for-dismissal and stayed cases, and every prior request anywhere for pardon, return of arrest records, or expungement. That’s a candor obligation with teeth. An omission the prosecutor finds first usually does more damage than the underlying offense does.
Madgett Law, LLC
Madgett Law, LLC handles Minnesota expungement petitions, including petitions filed to close the gaps automatic Clean Slate relief leaves open — orders directed specifically to the commissioners whose background studies still reach the record, and orders that seal the BCA’s record from out-of-state view. The firm also represents consumers against background-screening companies that keep reporting sealed and expunged records under Minn. Stat. § 332.70 and the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act. Call 612-470-6529 or send us a message.
Sources: Minn. Stat. § 609A.01 (scope of chapter; remedy limited to sealing); § 609A.015, subds. 1(a)–(d), 2, 3(a)–(f), 4(c), 5(a)–(c), 6 (automatic expungement eligibility, waiting periods, agency carve-out, BCA process); Laws 2023, ch. 52, art. 7, §§ 11–19 (effective dates; § 12 effective date and retroactivity clause for § 609A.015; § 19 enacting § 609A.05); Laws 2026, ch. 70, § 5 (new § 609A.015, subd. 5, paragraph (f) — BCA unsealing; chapter signed May 5, 2026; no effective-date clause, cf. § 4 effective January 1, 2027); Minn. Stat. § 645.02 (August 1 default effective date); § 609A.017, subds. 2, 3(a)–(b), 4(a) (mistaken identity); § 609A.02, subd. 3(a)(1)–(8), (b), subd. 4 (petition grounds; predatory-offender registration bar); § 609A.025 (a)–(c) (prosecutor agreement); § 609A.03, subds. 1, 2, 4, 5(a)–(e), 5a, 6a, 7a(b)(4)–(5), 9 (filing fee, contents, hearing timing, standards, firearms restriction, victim-nexus orders, agency-directed orders, stay and appeal); § 609A.035 (pardon extraordinary); § 609A.04 (civil remedy); § 609A.05 (no duty to discover); § 609A.055, subds. 1, 3(e), (h)–(j) (cannabis automatic expungement); § 609A.06, subds. 3, 7(a), 9, 12 (Cannabis Expungement Board); § 332.70, subds. 1(a), 2, 3, 3a, 5(a)–(b) (business screening services; deletion of expunged records; $1,000-or-actual-damages remedy); § 13.08, subds. 1–2 (Data Practices civil remedies; $1,000–$15,000 exemplary damages for willful violation); § 609.13, subd. 1(2) (felony deemed a misdemeanor on stay of imposition and discharge without prison sentence); § 357.021, subd. 2, cl. (1) ($310 civil filing fee); State v. M.D.T., 831 N.W.2d 276 (Minn. 2013) (No. A11-1285) (no inherent authority to expunge executive-branch records); State v. S.L.H., 755 N.W.2d 271 (Minn. 2008) (No. A06-1750); State v. Ambaye, 616 N.W.2d 256 (Minn. 2000) (No. C9-98-2221) (NGRI verdict not a resolution in petitioner’s favor; inherent-power expungement reviewed for abuse of discretion); Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, “Expungements” (Clean Slate effective January 1, 2025; automatic sealing began June 2025; 2,026,769 potentially eligible / 1,888,375 expunged / 107,841 in Judicial Branch review / 98.493%, data as of July 14, 2026; cannabis records expunged May 2024; National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact — records remain visible in other states absent a petition and court order).
This article is general legal information about Minnesota law. It is not legal advice, it does not create an attorney–client relationship, and no particular outcome is promised or implied. Expungement eligibility turns on the specific offense, disposition, and dates in your record.