Time eligibility reasons are inconsistent

[wittejm]

The time eligibility reasons are inconsistent between the mockup, the logic flowchart, and the existing output from the TimeAnalyzer.

Namely, in the flowchart some of the time-constraint labels include "Time-ineligible under [statute-subsection]", while some others say , "eligible at [date]".

The mockup and time analyzer both use some inconsistent / confusing wording IMO. For example the reason "Most recent conviction is less than three years old" (from the time analyzer):

1. is not explicit that this is referring to itself as the conviction
2. is misleading about what the actual rule is for time constraints generally: for example if the most recent conviction is 4 years old, it still renders all other expungements ineligible.

The reason "no more than 1 arrest in 3 years" (from the mockup) makes sense if it's attached to a dismissed charge, but is incorrect if it's attached to a convicted charge. "No conviction within 3 years" is a valid rule if it is attached to a conviction but is incorrect if it is attached to a dismissal.

There are 5 different time-constraint rules, and I propose using the following wordings:

• Convictions are ineligible for 3 years
• No-complaint arrests are ineligible for 1 year
• Must have no other convictions for 10 years
• Must have no other arrests for 3 years
• B felony convictions are ineligible for 20 years

Since the flowchart and time analyzer sometimes refer to the statute subsection that applies: if we want to we could add this as another line in the result.

Pings for @NickSchimek and @hmarcks but any opinions welcome

This task is done when:

• the reason values in time_analyzer.py have been updated.

[wittejm]

So, just because there are a bunch of ways to write this and I want to shoot for consistency more than anything, and partly to demonstrate that I think trying to make it really clear is a pain in the butt, here's a different set of reasons. Arguably, these phrases fit more naturally into reading the entry as "Eligible at [date] because that date is...[reason]:

• Ten years from most recent conviction
• Ten years from second-most recent conviction
• Three years from most recent arrest
• Three years from most recent arrest - Recommend sequential expungement
• Three years from second-most recent arrest
• One year from No Complaint arrest
• Three years from conviction
• Twenty years from B felony conviction

The reason of "Recommend sequential expungement" occurs if there is exactly one arrest from the last 3 years. That's because the most recent arrest is time-eligible (if there are no convictions within 10 years), and once you expunge it, any other arrests become time-eligible because they are no longer blocked by the arrest that just got expunged. Fun fact: convictions do not work the same way.

[hmarcks]

It looks like I had different language in the actual HTML than the mockup in the story, but I included the original proposal (v1) and added your suggestions (v2) (also updated the open case scenario).

I'm down with you proposal, but let's get Michael and Nick's feedback too. Thanks!

[wittejm]

I checked in with Michael and he likes the idea. @NickSchimek what do you think?

[wittejm]

Since we're working to add applicable statute sections to type eligibility reasons, we should add statute references to these reason strings also.