When You Still Have to Disclose a Dismissed Conviction

For most everyday situations, a dismissed conviction does not have to be disclosed. But the statute that grants the dismissal also names three specific situations where you still do, in its own text, and it is worth knowing them by name.

Updated October 10, 2026

People understandably want a flat yes-or-no on disclosure. The actual law gives a general rule and three named exceptions, written directly into the statute that creates the dismissal. Knowing those three situations by name is more useful than any general rule of thumb.

The three situations named in the statute itself

Penal Code § 1203.4(a)(1) grants the dismissal and, in the same breath, says the person is not relieved of the obligation to disclose the conviction “in response to any direct question contained in any questionnaire or application for public office, for licensure by any state or local agency, or for contracting with the California State Lottery Commission.” Those are the three carve-outs, and they are specific:

• Running for or holding public office.
• Applying for a license issued by a state or local licensing agency.
• Seeking a contract with the California State Lottery Commission.

Outside of those three, the general rule under § 1203.4(a)(1) is that the dismissal releases a person from “penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense,” which is the legal basis for not having to volunteer the conviction in most other contexts. Penal Code § 1203.4(a)(3) adds a related, separate point about public office specifically: the dismissal does not permit a person who is otherwise prohibited from holding public office because of the conviction to go ahead and hold that office anyway. The dismissal does not override an independent eligibility bar tied to the conviction.

The licensing carve-out, in practice

The licensing exception connects directly to Business and Professions Code § 480, which governs how state licensing boards can treat conviction history generally. Section 480(c) states that a person cannot be denied a license solely on the basis of a conviction that has been dismissed under Penal Code § 1203.4 or related statutes -- but it also requires the applicant to “provide proof of the dismissal if it is not reflected on the report furnished by the Department of Justice.” In other words: the board cannot deny you just for the dismissed conviction, but it can still ask about it on the application, and you may need documentation ready. Section 480(d) separately bars a board from denying a license based on an arrest that did not result in a conviction at all.

What about ordinary jobs?

This is where the general rule, not the exceptions, controls for most people. California's Fair Chance Act (Gov. Code § 12952) bars employers with five or more employees from asking about conviction history on a job application at all, before any conditional offer is made. Once an offer is made, the employer generally cannot consider convictions that have been sealed, dismissed, expunged, or judicially set aside. For the overwhelming majority of job applications, a dismissed conviction is not something you have to -- or legally should be asked to -- disclose.

What this does not cover

These disclosure rules apply to dismissed convictions specifically. They do not change separate requirements tied to peace officer applications, certain positions requiring fingerprint-based clearance under other statutes, or situations where a different law -- not Penal Code § 1203.4 -- controls disclosure, such as professional discipline rules tied to specific licensing categories. If your situation touches one of those areas, the three-exception rule above is the starting point, not necessarily the complete answer.

A related carve-out worth knowing: school employment

If your dismissal came through automatic DOJ relief rather than a court petition, there is an additional wrinkle worth knowing. The automatic-relief statute specifically preserves existing criminal-history-screening authority for school employment, with one narrow exception of its own for certain older drug-possession convictions (Penal Code § 1203.425(a)(4)(K)(i)-(ii)). In plain terms: automatic relief does not erase a school district's ability to see and consider the underlying record the way it normally would, separate from whatever disclosure rules apply to a court-ordered § 1203.4 dismissal. Anyone in or applying to a school-employment-adjacent role should treat that as its own question rather than assuming the general disclosure rules above cover it the same way.

Why the licensing exception exists at all

It is worth understanding why licensing gets singled out, rather than treating it as an arbitrary carve-out. State and local licensing boards are tasked with a public-protection function -- deciding who can practice a regulated profession -- and the legislature balanced that function against the general policy of not penalizing people forever for a dismissed conviction. The result is the compromise found in Business and Professions Code § 480: a board cannot reflexively deny a license just because a conviction happened and was later dismissed, but it also is not required to pretend the conviction never happened if it directly asks and you are required to answer. That is a narrower, more defensible line than either “never disclose” or “always disclose,” and it is the line the statute actually draws.

If you are filling out a licensing application right now and are not sure whether a specific question on that form is the kind of “direct question” the statute means, the safest approach is to answer accurately rather than guess that the question does not count. Being candid on a form you did not have to fill out carries far less risk than answering a direct question inaccurately on one you did.

Legal information on this page was last checked against primary sources in October 2026. California law changes; if you are reading this long after that date, confirm before you rely on it.