I have discussed the ACOD, (adjournment in contemplation of dismissal), a few times in the past on this blog but I believe it was mostly in the context of marijuana offenses. You can read them here, here, and here. The procedure for a marijuana related ACOD is codified in New Criminal Procedure Law at section 170.56.
The ACOD is also available to dispose of offenses other than marijuana as well. Everything from other controlled substance offenses (cocaine, crack, mushrooms, etc.) to assaults and sex crimes can also be dismissed by an ACOD. This procedure can be found at NY CPL Section 170.55. The difference between a marijuana ACOD and a non-marijuana ACOD under 170.55 is that the consent of the District Attorney (DA) is required for a non-marijuana related ACOD. Marijuana cases can be dismissed by an ACOD at the discretion of the judge, even if the DA opposes it. (However, the reality in most courts is that the judge will defer heavily to the opinion of the DA).
I am beginning to see a problem with the ACOD and the public's perception of what it actually means. Most people believe that an ACOD means that the charge(s) will be sealed and expunged as if they never happened. Indeed, when the Legislature created the ACOD statute it did so with the intent that the potentially severe damages and adverse consequences to a person's reputation and future employment prospects would be prevented by an ACOD. (There are a few statutory exceptions with regard to who can see information with regard to a case that was dismissed by an ACOD including any potential employer of a police officer and the military).
Sadly, the system is not working as the State intended it to. The ACOD is fine for people who are charged with an appearance ticket and there is no arrest and processing, but for those who are arrested, a criminal background check reveals that they were arrested, even when the case is dismissed by an ACOD. Non-criminal violations like UPM or Disorderly Conduct, when there is no arrest, do not appear on criminal background checks (at least I have not seen any yet). So what good is an ACOD if a potential employer can see that a person was arrested in the past? Explaining to the employer that an ACOD is not a conviction or an admission of guilt (which is what the law says) does not help that person who is being denied a job because of a previous arrest.
The only truly reliable way to make an arrest and prosecution go away "as if it never happened" is either an outright dismissal or acquittal at trial. So if a person is truly concerned about making sure information related to a criminal case is truly "sealed" from public view, he or she may have no option other than to fight the charges. And these days, with the internet and police blotters being published online, almost every arrest is publicized so even a dismissal will not remove the tarnish to reputation. A Google search of a person's name will provide links to police blotters published in local papers.
