The Puerto Rico Supreme Court issued a consolidated ruling on December 12, 2025, in *J.H.V. v. Negociado de la Policía de Puerto Rico*, addressing complex questions about gun license eligibility and the scope of police authority in firearms licensing decisions.
The case, designated as 2025 TSPR 139 and numbered CC-2024-0732 consolidated with CC-2024-0773, centers on administrative law issues regarding eligibility for firearms licenses when criminal records have been expunged or deleted from official databases. The court examined whether the Puerto Rico Police Bureau retains the authority to consider past convictions that have been eliminated from an individual's Criminal Background Certificate but remain accessible through internal search systems.
The consolidated cases involve two individuals, J.H.V. and D.J.C.M., who challenged decisions by the Negociado de la Policía de Puerto Rico (Puerto Rico Police Bureau). The disputes arose when the police bureau allegedly used expunged criminal information to revoke or deny firearms licenses, despite the convictions no longer appearing on official background checks.
The legal question at the heart of the case involves the tension between Puerto Rico's expungement laws and the police bureau's discretionary authority in firearms licensing. When criminal convictions are expunged, they typically disappear from public records and background checks, theoretically giving individuals a clean slate for licensing purposes. However, law enforcement agencies often maintain internal databases that preserve this information for investigative and administrative purposes.
The Puerto Rico Police Bureau, represented by the Office of the Attorney General, argued that maintaining public safety requires the ability to access complete criminal histories when making firearms licensing decisions. The agency contended that expungement laws should not prevent law enforcement from considering relevant criminal history when evaluating whether an individual poses a risk if armed.
The individual petitioners, represented by private counsel including attorneys Javier H. Jiménez Vázquez, Osvaldo Sandoval Báez, Efrén González González, and Reinaldo J. Franqui Escandón, argued that using expunged records violates the fundamental purpose of expungement laws. They contended that once records are officially eliminated, individuals should be treated as if the underlying conduct never occurred for licensing purposes.
The case was heard by multiple panels of the Court of Appeals before reaching the Supreme Court. Panel III initially handled case CC-2024-0732, while Panel II addressed CC-2024-0773. The Supreme Court's decision to consolidate the cases suggests the issues raised were sufficiently similar to warrant unified treatment.
The Office of the Attorney General assigned significant resources to the case, with both Attorney General Fernando Figueroa Santiago and Omar Andino Figueroa listed as counsel, along with Assistant Attorneys General Fabiola Sosa Baco, Frank A. Rosado Méndez, and María Astrid Hernández Martín handling different aspects of the consolidated matters.
This case reflects broader tensions in Puerto Rico's legal system between individual rights and public safety considerations. The island's gun licensing regime has faced increasing scrutiny as officials balance constitutional rights with public safety concerns. The expungement process typically allows individuals to move forward from past mistakes, but firearms licensing involves heightened public safety considerations that complicate this principle.
The timing of the decision, issued in December 2025, suggests the court prioritized resolving these administrative law questions before the end of the judicial year. The case's designation as 2025 TSPR 139 indicates it was among the final significant rulings of the year for Puerto Rico's highest court.
The consolidated nature of the cases suggests that disputes over expunged records and firearms licensing have become increasingly common in Puerto Rico. Multiple individuals facing similar situations indicates this may be a systemic issue requiring judicial clarification rather than isolated administrative errors.
The involvement of the Department of Public Security (Departamento de Seguridad Pública) and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico) as parties demonstrates the case's broader implications for government policy. These entities' participation suggests the ruling could affect administrative practices beyond just the Police Bureau.
The court's decision will likely establish important precedent for how Puerto Rico handles conflicts between expungement laws and administrative licensing decisions. The ruling may clarify whether law enforcement agencies can access and consider expunged information for licensing purposes, or whether expungement creates an absolute bar to such consideration.
The case also highlights the evolving nature of criminal justice reform in Puerto Rico, where expungement laws aim to provide second chances while public safety agencies seek to maintain comprehensive oversight of firearms licensing. The Supreme Court's resolution of these competing interests will guide future administrative decisions and potentially influence legislative approaches to both expungement and firearms regulation.
Legal practitioners specializing in administrative law and criminal justice reform will closely examine this decision for its broader implications regarding the scope and limitations of expungement protections in various administrative contexts beyond firearms licensing.