Magistrate Judge Joan Azrack
A May 2003 warrant sought Peters' arrest for conspiracy to defraud. In September, the court granted the government's motion to dismiss the criminal complaint against Peters. Peters moved to expunge her arrest record. District court observed that courts have consistently refused to expunge criminal records even when an arrest record creates "serious adverse consequence" for a person. They have also routinely denied expungement where the arrests at issue have resulted in acquittal or dismissal of charges. However, citing United States v. Van Wagner the court noted that if coupled with hardship, the government's express concession of an individual's innocence can warrant an arrest record's expungement when charges have been dismissed. Balancing the government's need to maintain the arrest record against the harm its maintenance caused Peters, the court denied Peters' pro se Feb. 19, 2013, expungement motion. She did not show harm resulting from her arrest record. Despite her insistence that she is innocent, the court noted that the government has not conceded Peters' innocence. Nor were any of the four extreme circumstances warranting expungement—outlined by the Second Circuit in United States v. Schnitzer—present.
