Originally Posted by
alexb133
Are they able to do iris scans at land crossings now?
There are a few that do it, but I believe most still don't.
Originally Posted by
Dubai Stu
What I can tell you is that the title of a law is often the worst tool to determine what it actually does. Just because the dictionary definition of a word support an argument that the law means X doesn't make it so. This is particularly true after the law has been on the books for a while and has been tinkered with.
One of the problems is that the law doesn't provide a definition of expungement.
Originally Posted by
Dubai Stu
"No, and it is against the law for employers for potential employers (except those specifically allowed by law) to ask you whether you ever had any records expunged or sealed."
the FAQs go on to say:
"You don't have to disclose the expunged conviction unless the law requires it on occupational licensing forms."
Correct-- some occupations require disclosure.
Originally Posted by
Dubai Stu
By the way, the Illinois manual is very well done. I forwarded a copy of the same to a friend who is the Director of the State Appellate Defender's Office in Detroit with a suggestion that they might want to use it as a model for their Michigan version of the same.
Excellent idea. ^
Originally Posted by
Dubai Stu
I emailed your post to a friend who is a criminal attorney in Illinois and a former clerk for an Illinois criminal trial court. I had said in my email that I question whether an expungment would be a deep enough purge that a Homeland security background check wouldn't see through it. This is what he said:
"Your inclination is correct. At the very least, a deep background may show the individual was arrested but may not show the charge or disposition (which may actually hurt the petitioner in some instances).
But a check an NCIC would (should) not. Trusted Traveler is (to my knowledge) just an NCIC check; it is certainly not a "deep" background check.
Originally Posted by
Dubai Stu
The problem in Illinois is that the State Police read the statute as not binding on them to purge the record of an expungement petition so it often takes a fight, or at a minimum some begging, to get the records person at headquarters (in Springfield) to do their job.
While expungement is better than sealing, a petition for expungement and sealing is better and more comprehensive in Illinois. Don't ask me why this is but petitioners always had more success in getting more of the "criminal footprint" removed by filing this more comprehensive motion.
That seems to be the wisdom.
Originally Posted by
Dubai Stu
I clerked for several Illinois trial court judges during law school and one of my primary responsibilities was to review and advise the judges whether to grant expungement and sealing petitions. I have been out of that loop for 3 years now."
Cool.
Originally Posted by
Dubai Stu
"They are still around. They are "impounded" in the clerks office and you can file a motion to unseal and reseal which I've seen routinely done for young licensed proffesionals to be, that are going in front of character and fitness or the department of prof reg that licenses doctors etc....they need access to the disposition and often the arrest report. At the same time, fingerprint/booking cards are sent back by cops to the lawyer/petitioner after expungement...they've been good at complying lately after some recent litigation going after the state police."
Good, so the police are finally complying-- albeit based on litigation.
Originally Posted by
Dubai Stu
I don't want to hijack this thread too much, but I just wanted to pass this on.
I take full responsibility; let's stop now.
Originally Posted by
Dubai Stu
As a compromise measure, why not check the "no" box on the GOES application, but note the expungment in the comments. This will meant that at least an algorithm won't deny you admission to the program.
I am already a NEXUS member-- and I've never been arrested-- so I'm not particularly worried.
