mileena

Finally, someone who gets it. It is never appropriate to lie to the federal government. The correct answer when one asks if you have ever been arrested (and that arrest has never been expunged or pardoned) is to decline to answer.

mileena

Wrong. You are advocating the breaking of the law. I am surprised a moderator has not removed your post.

mileena

Expungements do not apply to convictions. Convictions can only be pardoned, not expunged.

If your arrest is expunged, the government cannot see it.

When I was arrested for felony identity theft, the case resulted in a dismissal. I could have the arrest itself expunged, but the court wanted something like $875 ($125 each agency) to send the expungement order to seven or so different agencies:

FBI (maintains NCIC)
local police department involved
county sheriff
court
state police (maintains state arrest records)
district attorney
[i forget the other]

Each agency would be ordered to delete all records they have of my arrest.

So $875 to have a mere arrest removed, where it was recorded anyway that it resulted in a dismissal? No way. That's a very steep price to pay, so I declined.

[BTW, I was only charged with a felony above because the alleged victim was a senior. It should have been just a misdemeanor. This senior happened to be very sharp and active and still climbed ladders outside at 83! She hardly deserved extra protection because she was a senior citizen. She was more sharp than most of us non-seniors. And this senior was also defrauding the IRS at the time, and for the past 20 years, by not reporting as income rent from all of her tenants in her house. Of course, no one ever found about that.]

mileena

Also, someone asked about the NCIC and arrests.

Here is the answer:

For each arrest in the NCIC, they will have a corresponding resolution listed with it.

For example:

misdemeanor arrest - result: conviction
felony arrest - result: dismissal

Sometimes there is no result listed next to an arrest. This can mean either there is a warrant for not appearing, or there was a resolution, but for some reason they do not have it in their records. In that case, more time might be necessary for the agency to call the state to verify. Or in some cases, after a certain amount of time since the arrest has passed (like three years), some agencies simply conclude there must have been a resolution in the case and act on that if possible, since you would have been arrested by then if there had been a warrant or they were serious about arresting you.

Also, some states do not give information to the NCIC. For example, I have 10 misdemeanor convictions in one state, but nothing appeared in the NCIC (I requested the FBI send me my record, which they did). So CBP would not know about those convictions unless they contacted the state for them do pull my record. I don't know if they would do that for GE, Nexus, Sentri, or FAST; but they most likely would not do that if you were crossing the border. They would just look at NCIC, if that.

Pesky Monkey

Remaining silent is never illegal.

Dubai Stu

Different states have different terminology and rules. My state expunges convictions. You can have one non-serious felony wiped from your record. You can also have up to two misdemeanors not exceeding ninety days (if they occurred before you twentieth birthday).

My state rarely gives pardons, but if you are one of the very lucky few, it is completely wiped from your record. We follow the old approach and completely purge them. That is why only 58 people have gotten them, since 1969.

https://www.nacdl.org/uploadedFiles/...te_narr_mi.pdf

State law terms aren't binding on the Feds. You can get Global Entry with a pardon, not an expungment. If you were unsure how to fill out the box you had a comment field where you could have given more facts.

I do have some sympathy for the person who answered the question "wrong." The state tells you that you have a right to deny your conviction status but they don't you about the exceptions. When you answer the question wrong, people almost always say that it reflects on your moral character that you "lied" on the form and that what part of the question "Have you ever been convicted of a crime is unclear." I think the appropriate answer to this conundrum is that if you are one of the government agencies that has the authority to inquire into expunged, vacated, or sealed convictions you should make it clear that you have the authority and ask a second question, sort of like they do with Privacy Act Questions.

Somewhere in this thread you'll see that I got into a fight with a guy who had an Illinois record set aside who strongly argued with me that he had the right to deny the conviction to Homeland Security. People who are the recipient of these set asides are conditioned by many state systems that they do not have a conviction. In reality in 2012, they have still have a reminent of the conviction. The better way to think about it is that they have a "sheltered conviction/adjudication" rather than no conviction.

People with the foreign equivalent of these similar sometimes get in trouble when applying for admission ot the U.S. They are supposed to disclose these adjudications. Sometimes they slip through the cracks and get missed, but if they get caught, we treat it as reflecting on their moral character.

Dubai Stu

See my comment above as to why I think this question is more complicated than some people have treated it. Here the problem is that the individual clicked the "no" box. He didn't simply omit to answer a box.

Ari

I'm not sure I saw that thread, but usually if a conviction is "set aside" it means that there was some procedural or legal defect in the undelying proceedings and the conviction is vacated to allow for new proceedings possibly including a new trial. That is very different from expungement or sealing where the undelying conviction is not disturbed. Whether an expunged conviction needs to be disclosed depends on who's asking and what they are asking. Illinois doesn't set aside convictions unless they were obtained in violation of the law or for innocence.

Dubai Stu

Not everywhere. Convictions can be set aside if they have been taken under advisement and the offender has gotten in trouble during the probationary period. That is how a plea under Michigan's Holmes Youthful Trainee Act works. Nebraska also "sets aside" convictions based on rehabilitation:

http://court.nol.org/self-help/set-a...m-convict.html

Also look at my State's Court of Appeal's ruling in Carr v Midland County:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...en&as_sdt=4,23


An expunged conviction (using my state's definition of the term) is vacated. Our Attorney General used this distinction to opine that an individual with an expunged conviction was "not convicted" within the meaning of our CPL law. Based on this, the Attorney General opined that the individual was not "convicted" of a disqualified conviction.

http://www.ag.state.mi.us/opinion/da...0s/op10208.htm

The feds are going to look beyond the exact mechanism involved or label involved to see whether the ruling was based on a determination of innocence, procedural irregularities in the original proceeding, or simply rehabilitation. If the determination was based on rehabilitation, they are not going to honor it (unless it is governor's or president's pardon) regardless of the exact legal mechanism that a given state uses.

This is an area of the law where every state is different and the same word is defined differently once you cross a state line. The bottom line, however, is that the feds are a separate sovereign and are not required to respect state law on the subject.

Global_Hi_Flyer

That is not accurate.

In SOME states, convictions can be expunged. In some, the expungement is accompanied by something termed a judicial pardon. In some, the records may be sealed and only viewed with permission of the court, while in others the may be destroyed.

For CBP purposes (and in particular immigration purposes both in the US and certain other countries) they want to know about convictions - even if they are pardoned or expunged. Other countries don't seem to care.

Tread carefully. Many people don't realize that for *some* things an arrest or conviction is truly "one strike and you're out".

runderwo

Ombudsman replied, after 5 months, and denied my appeal. They still did not list the specific reason but only "confirmed" the reasons I was given on my denial letter, which were none, just a vague "not meeting the requirements of the Global Entry program". Kafka would be impressed.

I cannot conclude otherwise from my experience than if an officer asks if you have ever used an illegal drug, the answer you must give is no.

scubadu

Which, of course, if a lie would be a pretty idiotic thing to do.

Regards

drewguy

Why? If you're saying "pretty immoral thing to do" okay.

But if you used drugs years ago, but there's no real evidence of that other than some friends who witnessed it, there's nearly zero likelihood that CPB can establish that you are lying.

It's a bit different than a Senate confirmation for some cabinet position where anybody might come out and volunteer such information.

runderwo

It'd be a pretty smart thing to do if it meant regaining the freedom of Precheck, instead of merely donating $100 to the government for an intimate session with a customs goon. The latter would seem the idiotic thing to do, based on my experience and how I feel like an idiot for not just lying.

leaveamessage

How would they treat a global entry application for a permanent resident with no charges/convictions, but a single arrest & caution from the uk 12 years ago?

I know the concept of a caution does not exist in the US- in the uk it is basically a formal warning with no further action but that remains on record, but it does require an admission of guilt.
It is not classed as a conviction, and no charge or court is involved.

The offence involved is classed as a misdemeanor in the US not a felony, and it is not considered a crime involving moral turpitude if that makes any difference (it did during the immigrant visa process, where everything was declared and documented in my file but it wasn't an issue and no additional processing or waivers required)

Just unsure whether i should even bother applying given some of the examples on here.