This was the sentence that brought the thought to my mind:



If I had been in your shoes I would have demanded an attorney immediately.




While we are on the subject, the DRE program the officer eluded to (look at decp.org) is an extensive training program that will train an officer to recognize the signs certain chemical substances cause to bodily systems.

Taking a quick look at someones eyes in the field isnt a reliable way of doing anything except bluffing someone. And it works most of the time!

Its a small piece of information that fits into a puzzle you assemble to make a determination of what drug is acting on the body.

Looking for large, sluggish pupils probably used to be a decent clue if someone was using narcotics and other illicit but isn't now. I see it everyday. There are so many people on prescription meds that cause the same thing, especially anti-depressants.

I think that comes from people watching Law and Order and seeing the attorney burst into the interview room to tell the cops "This questioning ends now!" As you said, free legal counsel isn't usually granted until the defendant appears in court, and some courts require both a financial statement showing an inability to pay the costs of counsel (I have seen judges tell defendants things like "Sell your car") and a notice from the prosecutor that they intend to seek jail time in the event of a conviction.

But I have yet to see a police station that had a bench of lawyers ready to be called up to bat.

Most people will agree to answer questions without counsel present if they think there's any hope of being able to talk themselves out of jail. This rarely happens. If I arrested someone, I knew whether they were going to jail or not. If they agreed to be interviewed without counsel, it was an evidence-gathering opportunity for me. I already had enough probable cause to hold them, and chances were good that they would give me enough in the interview to convict them. But, as soon as anyone said, "I want my lawyer," I'd tell them they were perfectly within their rights to ask, book them into jail, and move on to whatever was next.

For the state and national automated criminal history files, records are entered only when a fingerprint card (or its digital equivalent) is received by the criminal records repository. This ensures that the record of arrest and/or conviction is matched to a specific person, not just a name record. If the arrestee uses a different name than what appears in the master record, that name goes on as an "aka" (also known as). This applies even if you use a common variation, like "William Jefferson Clinton" instead of "Bill Clinton."

What makes the system so inconsistent is that different agencies have different policies about what they submit for entry into the repository, and the repositories themselves have policies of their own as to what records they will accept. One PD might send in every arrest they make, even if it's for unpaid parking tickets. Another might exclude everything less serious than a crime of violence, like battery.

Because courts are also inconsistent, it's commonplace to see a charge on a criminal history ("rap sheet") that has no disposition. So, you can see that someone got arrested for domestic battery, but unless you can locate the court where the charge was sent and get someone who can find the record, you won't know what happened to it. It might have been dismissed at arraignment, and the person might have been convicted and done a year in jail, but you often can't tell from the rap sheet.

If you manage to get a case expunged (and, as billinaz suggested, good luck with that), there will always be a record of the event someplace. Expunged cases are supposed to be eradicated from the files, but there will always be an officer's memo book or a copy of a report in a file that everyone forgot about. It's a highly imperfect system.

Or one of the private "background checking" services that sells the information to employers & has managed to scoop up all the data in-bulk from a local court/police information system. THey are under no obligation to expunge the data once they get it. It is public data....

That is true of many jobs, but there are some that ask about arrests. Several questions related to typical DoD security clearance require that you detail even sealed and expunged cases. I would hope that the explanation that charges were dropped would be sufficient to allay any fears from the investigator, but it would be even better to be able to say, "Yeah, I was arrested... but I later won a false arrest and imprisonment suit after the charges were dropped and the LEO investigated."

Sorry to hear that Eastwest. I have seen a lot of your posting in the AS forum (I am a AS flyer), and I know you are a level-headed, hard-working airline employee. I support other poster that you need to at least file a compliant so to give the bully notice.

BW

eastwest,

I am very interested in which SoCal airport you had this experience. Last year I was traveling through John Wayne airport in the OC. I went through security and something I was wearing set it off so I was herded aside to a small corral to await a personal pat down. While I was waiting a 6'6" TSA agent on the carryon screening line attracted my attention with "Sir!" and banging my laptop back and forth in those trays. It was already a really bad day for me and I saw a bit of red, went over to him and asked him what the .... he was doing with my laptop and to stop bashing it around like he was. That was all she wrote. I was taken aside by 5 sheriffs and subjected to an hour of interrogration and harassment. I was threatened with the next three days in jail. One of them was trying to provoke me into some kind of action that would allow them to arrest me - at one point he jumped towards me and yelped something in an attempt to get a response. At the end of the process I was not allowed on my flight and I overheard one of them say they were going to try and get me on the no-fly list. A few weeks later I got a letter from the Dept of Homeland Security opening an investigation.....

I have flown through many airports since 9/11 including JFK and La Guardia. None of them compare to the .......s at John Wayne Airport. In fact JFK have been the most professional, jovial and competent screeners I have had the pleasure to chat with.

I beg to differ. I think the past congress was perfectly willing to let things go (by controlling hearings and what happens at hearings) to defend the Executive Branch. I don't think the soon to be Democratic Congress will be nearly as accomodating. Do you think Rumsfeld's resignation was a coincidence? If he was still SecDef come January he would be facing questions, and follow up questions, and hearings, and inquiries, and a good hard look at his words and deeds over the past five years. Up to now the Republicans have basically prevented any real inquiries by cutting hearings short and preventing questions. No more Republican committe chairmen means they can't do that any more.

So I say publicize it, because the TSA is going to start feeling more heat from elected representatives who actually care what happens to their constituents in the name of "security".

But if you want to book them you have to charge them with something, which you don't have to do when you're "just talking" and they haven't asked for a lawyer.

Fingerprint cards
 

My guess is that when your SIDA card is renewed, they do a criminal arrest background check.

And rather than looking at court records for convictions, most employers and government agencies look at fingerprint records for arrests.

If they took fingerprints (a "ten print" of all ten fingers, rather than just putting a right index fingerprint on some of the forms), then there is an arrest record. Fingerprint cards for serious charges are usually taken in three sets:
one set for the Originating Jurisdiction (ORI); one set for that state's criminal records data base, and one set for the F.B.I. data base.

If the arrestee is not charged, or is charged and acquitted, he has the right to have the arrest "expunged." What that means is he has the right to get the fingerprint cards back, or to have them destroyed. Deleting or destroying the fingerprint records supposedly deletes or destroys your criminal record. However, in many jurisdictions the agency that took the set of prints gets to keep their set. And when the feds delete or destroy the arrest record, I am not sure whether the arrestee continues to have an NCIC number in the central data base. And it probably varies from state to state whether the arrestee continues to have a SID number in that state's central data base.

But since having a "criminal history" is mostly a matter of having a fingerprint-supported listing in the state and federal computerized data banks, getting the print cards deleted, returned, or destroyed is something anyone wrongfully arrested should attempt to do.

Eastwest, my sincere condolences for the outrageous manner in which you were treated. As an American, I am outraged.

I realize this is not a legal forum, but I feel compelled to set a few points straight.

First, contrary to what the local law enforcement officer said as well as the post here which validated it, it is NOT against the law to be "on drugs," i.e. under the influence of a controlled substance unless either a) one is operating a motor vehicle or aircraft; or b) one is disorderly in public; or c) one is in violation of a clearly written and constitutional statute.

No less than the U.S. Supreme Court ruled many years ago on exactly this point: States cannot punish status but can punish behavior. This is first year law school stuff.

A perfect example would be the passenger who is nervous about flying so he takes a tranquilizer prescribed for him (e.g. Valium) before clearing the security checkpoint. As long as he has done nothing criminal, he has not violated any law, EVEN THOUGH he is "under the influence" of a controlled substance.

Similarly, there may be another passenger who has medical condition, e.g. cancer, which puts him in severe pain. He takes his prescibed pain killer that is a controlled substance (e.g. Vicodin ES) and the same situation applies.

I do not understand the repeated references to "drug recognition experts." The poster who cited this should himself take a look at the web site to which he referred and can read at http://decp.org/experts/ the following:
Obviously, you were not driving.

It sounds to me like the officer was either trying to perform (or trying to fake) a test called "horizontal gaze nystagmus," about which you can find out more at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/inju...agmus/toc.html

Since we're into citing websites, I thought you might like this quote from "California DUI: A Drunk Driving Law Guide"
(Interestingly, I took a continuing legal education course on the prosecution and defense of drunk driving and saw first hand how this test is performed correctly and incorrectly.)

I agree with all the posters who have urged you to see an attorney. Since I am an attorney myself, I would suggest you try and find someone who handles not merely tort cases (e.g. False Arrest, False Imprisonment) but also civil rights violations.

If the brief notes you have provided here are a complete and accurate description of the incident, your lawyer may wish to consider an action against the local authorities for violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983.

Again, only a competent and experienced lawyer who interviews you can determine what rights you have and how best to pursue a remedy. Since various laws exist which can seriously limit the amount of time in which you can sue a governmental entity, I urge you to see an attorney right away.

I am not a member of the Bar in your state and do not solicit you as a client.

Good luck.

Dilated pupils isnt a sign of a narcotic. Quite the opposite, typically we see pupils in the 2mm range with little to no movement when in a dark room enviroment.

Thats assuming they were submitted. Many times due to paperwork snafus or poor quality prints the fingerprints may not get submitted.



Wrongfully arrested? If there was enough probalbe cause to support an arrest then you were not wrongfully arrested. If you were not convicted because of a technical mess up or a victim failing to follow thru in the prosecution or something like that then its your lucky day. You were not wrongfully arrested, just hit the lottery that day.

I get to hear this al the time on a local (now very rich!) defense attorney firm that has "clients" who project over the TV screens:

"When I was wrongfully arrested for my DUI, I called XXXXXXXX and Associates"

Cracks me up every time.. and if you watch closely you would think the guy is drunk right then!

Status of "being on drugs" is not a crime
 

Back when I worked the streets as a cop we had "blue cards" for a status offense of being intoxicated.

Subsequently, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the status of being on drugs or being drunk cannot be made a crime.

Hence believing that a passenger at a security checkpoint is "on drugs" is not probable cause to arrest that person for a crime. Being drunk or high may be grounds to deny a prospective passenger boarding, but it is not in itself a crime.