This Officer Shot an Unarmed Black Man. Now She Can Legally Say She Was Never Prosecuted for It.

A court ruling last week “essentially makes it as if it never happened.”

Former Tulsa police officer Betty Shelby after her swearing in as a reserve deputy for the Rogers County Sheriff's Department.Jessie Wardarski/Tulsa World via AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Former Tulsa, Oklahoma, police officer Betty Shelby scored a second legal win last week, when a judge agreed to remove from the public record all documents related to her trial in the shooting death of 43-year-old Terrance Crutcher. Shelby was acquitted in May of manslaughter charges stemming from an encounter with Crutcher in September 2016.

Video footage showed her shoot Crutcher, whose car was stalled in the middle of the highway, as he backed away from her and other officers who were trying to engage him. Attorneys for Shelby argued in court that she shot Crutcher after he attempted to reach into an open car window. (A toxicology test found traces of PCP in Crutcher’s system.)

Under Oklahoma law, the judge’s decision to expunge her record means Shelby can legally deny she was ever arrested or prosecuted for the shooting, and all records related to the incident will remain under court seal. I talked to Tulsa civil rights attorney J. Spencer Bryan and criminal defense attorney Bob Wyatt to further discuss the law and its implications in such cases.

What is expungement?

Under state law, anyone prosecuted for but acquitted of a crime can petition a judge to have the case wiped from their record. If a judge is convinced that a person’s privacy or other interests outweigh the public benefit of reviewing the materials in question, he or she can order that all or part of the court filings be sealed. (Only the prosecuting district attorney’s office would have a copy of those documents.)

The expunged court records are retained for 10 years, after which they may be destroyed. Only a judge can grant access to an outside party, such as a police agency, a news outlet, or a prosecutor from another county. “It essentially makes it as if it never happened,” Bryan says. “It won’t appear on the docket. You can’t go find it. You can’t pull any documents from it. You can’t look to see when things were even filed. The entirety of the case file would be placed under seal and locked away never to be seen again.”

I searched for Shelby’s case in Tulsa County’s courts database and found nothing. Now, if asked about Shelby’s arrest and prosecution, the Tulsa police and Tulsa County prosecutor’s office will be obligated to deny it ever happened.

Will the shooting follow her to her next police gig?

That depends where she goes. Police agencies in Oklahoma will still have access to Shelby’s arrest record, but not her court file. Whether out-of-state agencies can see she was arrested depends on whether the data was put into the FBI’s national database, says Shelby’s attorney, Shannon McMurray. State and local authorities cannot share the information, though, and Shelby’s arrest and prosecution won’t appear in court records searches or a criminal background checks, Wyatt says. So a prospective police employer outside the state would have to rely on Shelby and her attorneys for information.

A few weeks after retiring from the Tulsa PD, Shelby took a volunteer gig at the Roger’s County Sheriff’s Office—that was in August, the same month a Washington Post special investigation found that, since 2006, more than 450 officers fired for misconduct have been reinstated or hired by other police departments. Expungements in use-of-force cases, Bryan says, facilitate such transitions.

Could the Crutcher shooting be used against Shelby in future court proceedings?

Only if they are in Tulsa County. If Shelby were to be charged with a crime while working at a department elsewhere, even if the prosecutor could get a judge to grant access to the records, the trial judge would almost certainly not let a jury see them, Bryan says: “It just adds another layer of hiding an officer’s history from the public.” An individual or an attorney pursuing a civil rights claim against Shelby (as Crutcher’s family is) faces the same obstacles.

How often does this happen?

Bryan says this is the first he’s heard of an officer seeking an expungement after being acquitted of a crime in Oklahoma, but he’s “sure” cops have done it in lower-profile cases. Most states have a process whereby criminal defendants who have been acquitted, had a case dismissed, or have completed probation can have their record expunged, he says.

What about when an officer’s use of force is deemed justifiable by an internal review? Are those records available?

Generally, no. In Tulsa, “if there was information contained in the police file, you wouldn’t be able to get it unless you filed a lawsuit and then subpoenaed those records or requested them,” Bryan told me. Many police departments have rules built into their union contracts or in a separate police “bill of rights” that limit public access to internal records about officers. Some union contracts also mandate that all records related to investigations of an officer be destroyed after a certain number of years. So cops whose misconduct never makes it to court are already shielded from public scrutiny.

Some officers facing internal disciplinary reviews have simply quit and joined another department before their superiors could issue any decision against them (thereby keeping their record clean). Such was the case with Timothy Loehmann, who as a Cleveland police officer shot 12-year-old Tamir Rice in 2014. Loehmann had left his previous job after his superiors initiated a process to fire him for poor performance. When he joined the Cleveland PD, he neglected to disclose the earlier review on his application.

Can’t people just Google Shelby?

Of course, and they’ll find tons of media reports. But the details will be harder to verify now. And a search might not be as fruitful for an officer whose misconduct was not widely covered, Bryan says. Google can potentially tell you that an incident occurred, but it won’t give you access to any sealed court documents.

Correction: This story has been revised and corrected to better reflect what Shelby must disclose about the case and who has access to her expunged files.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate