Hello Everyone,
Any help you could offer would be greatly appreciated.
Need clarification in the State of Texas.
If the person is acquitted by the jury of a Class B Misdemeanor in Texas, example DWI, and the judge orders a full expungement of the record, which means all records should be obliterated, is it still acceptable to keep records on file electronically in a backup IT database and simply redact any information relating to the defendant? I realize the technical definition of obliterate means that any and all records are destroyed, paper, electronic or otherwise, however this is more about the nuanced interpretation that could be derived from this situation.
If you need additional information, just let me know.
Thanks again!

Not seeing much room for "nuance" here:

Art. 55.04. VIOLATION OF EXPUNCTION ORDER.
Sec. 1. A person who acquires knowledge of an arrest while an officer or employee of the state or of any agency or other entity of the state or any political subdivision of the state and who knows of an order expunging the records and files relating to that arrest commits an offense if he knowingly releases, disseminates, or otherwise uses the records or files.
Sec. 2. A person who knowingly fails to return or to obliterate identifying portions of a record or file ordered expunged under this chapter commits an offense.
Sec. 3. An offense under this article is a Class B misdemeanor.

Maybe the "nuance" reference is to the "identifying portions" language in Section 2 - which appears to support the conclusion that if ALL of the identifying information is obliterated, then there is not an offense. However, this seems rather inconsistent with Section 1, which appears significantly broader ("otherwise uses the records or files") which would appear to apply to ANY use for ANY purpose. It is difficult to see any circumstance under which a violation of section 2 would not be a violation of Section 2, except that Section 1 is limited to specific persons.

So, perhaps a third party who obtains knowledge of the expunged information, but who is not a person defined in Section 1, who is nonetheless aware of the order of expunction, could commit an offense if the information not returned or obliterated is "identifying information" but not other information contained in the records.

The context of my question would be in the realm of an IT database that was configured to hold some information but not necessarily identifying information merely as a system of record that something was once there as in a few bits of information still present but now has so much missing or redacted information that it cannot be linked to any particular person, parties, or specific case, case number, etc. Where this gets complex is if you have a person who commits two crimes but one offense is allowed to be expunged while the other remains an active and ongoing case. Hope this helps and doesn't confuse the matter. Any and all assistance is greatly appreciated!

Take a look at Art. 55.02, Sec. 5(a), which talks about how the agencies actually have to comply with an expunction. It directs the agencies to either return all records to the District Clerk or "obliterate all portions of the record or file that identify the person who is the subject of the arrest." Sec.5(g) also specifically authorizes agencies to retain receipts, invoices, and other financial information so long as it obliterates all portions of the record that identify the person who is the subject of the expunction order. So as long as whatever portions of the record you still have can't in any way be connected back to the petitioner, then you are fine to keep the redacted copies.

In response to your clarification issue about a person who commits multiple crimes, you might want to look at 55.02 sec.4. That section has various options for obtaining an exception in your expunction order if the records and files are still needed for the prosecution of another case.