Parents - a question about my PI case

<p>Some of you may remember my topic a few months back about my run in with the law....</p>

<p>I am currently a student in the US seeking internship possibilities for the summer. I was arrested a few months back for public intox, but my lawyer spoke with the prosecutor and all charges were dropped, according to him the only thing remaining on my record is 'arrested with dismissal'. Many of these intern applications require me to note if I've been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor. I have not been convicted, but they do state a criminal records check will be conducted; obviously my 'arrested with dismissal' will surface during this examination. Do employers generally take dismissals seriously even though all charges have been dropped? Even though I was not convicted of anything I am still worried 'arrested with dismissal' will present me with employment complications during my interview process. I look forward to responses from the wise and knowledgeable parents here at CC. Thanks.</p>

<p>Nfl2k2, there can be times if this surfaces, that you can get employment or other difficulties. It comes with the package. However, for the most part, unless you are going into a supersensitive field, it will not affect you. As the years go by, it will have less of an effect.</p>

<p>If you are really worried about it, you can hire a lawyer to file for an expungement of your charge so it will not show up on your record.</p>

<p>PackMom is right. A good attorney can get your record totally expunged or sealed so that it will not surface (however after 9/11, if you go for a "compartmental clearance" ( a step above secret), it will show but probably not be held against you. I had major drug busts expunged from client's who got high level gov't jobs plus secret and top secret clearances after they had been told by run of the mill garden variety attorneys not to worry about dismissed charges. that said, a PI charge is not the end of the world. You can avoid the expense and hassle of attorneys & expungement with a candid rendition of President Bush's mantra: " When I was young and irresponsbile, I was young and irresponsible". It is a plus to be able to truthfully say that any employer will not have to worry about reading an article in the paper about you being arrested for PI since you learned your lesson.</p>

<p>PackMom,</p>

<p>My lawyer said an expungement would only happen had the arresting officer arrested me with no cause - he did in fact arrest me according to the university guidelines (I was drinking during the game which is grounds for an arrest, despite being under the legal limit). </p>

<p>Now that I have to deal with this situation I am wondering if you've heard of people losing job opportunities based only on the fact that they were arrested and not necessarily charged with anything...</p>

<p>I am the employment lawyer for a large corporation. We hire an outside service (as do most companies) to do our background checks. We specifically state that we do NOT want any information on arrests- just convictions. If a company gets arrest information, it can lead to lots of problems if employment is denied to someone.</p>

<p>MomofWildChild is right on about private companies following the law of the land about disparate impact on racial minorities over using arrests instead of convictions. However, the gov't doesn't really care in my experience since as long as they only use it to screen out non minorities, there is no disparate impact and no consequence. Bottom line: any attorney who tells you he or she cannot get your arrest expunged just does not have the right stuff.</p>

<p>
[quote]
If a company gets arrest information, it can lead to lots of problems if employment is denied to someone.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>May I ask why this is? </p>

<p>As I understand it, the jail keeps records of arrests to establish that suspects were or were not at a certain place at a certain time. I've also heard they keep these records to ensure minorities aren't being arrested more than non-minorities.</p>

<p>Witout copious legal citations, the bottom line is that it has been determined by the Supreme Court that using just arrests instead of convictiions is a form of illegal discrimination on classes that historically get arrested and not convicted.</p>

<p>Friend's son was arrested and charged with PI and possession of a fake ID when he was 20. He did community service and the charges were "dropped" (I don't think that's the right legal term). Anyway he landed a great job with the gov't with security clearance. He did tell them about it at interview just in case it did show up--but wasn't a problem.</p>

<p>Charm2017 is dead wrong with the "right stuff" comment. The laws about maintenance of criminal records vary from state to state, and expungement procedures may not even exist in some jurisdictions. Unless Charm2017 knows what state you are in and is licensed to practice in that state, he/she cannot possibly know what remedies are available to you. (I'm in California, and in this state, what is commonly referred to as an "expungement" is no more than an action that turns a conviction into a dismissal -- which is what you already have. It does not erase the record of the arrest or relieve the person of the obligation to answer truthfully about the arrest in applying for jobs with public agencies. )</p>

<p>An arrest without a conviction need not be disclosed and usually will not show up on criminal background checks. I would not mention it, unless/except you are applying for a job that requires high level security clearance, where the standards for scrutiny could be far more rigorous. But an employment application that asks whether you have been convicted of a crime is NOT asking for arrest history. People are arrested mistakenly all the time -- a "dismissal" is generally a good indication that the charges were either baseless, that the evidence to proceed was insufficient, or that the charges were too trivial for law enforcement to pursue.</p>

<p>Dead Wrong? Yeah. That's the same sad song and story I heard from lots of clients whose attorneys I would not have had defend me on a parking ticket. There is no state in the USA where a judge cannot excerise equity authority. You may need to get the original judge, but it can be done. Of course, every attorney I ever beat in court would tell you otherwise.</p>

<p>Further evidence that you should consult with a lawyer in your local area who specializes in this type of stuff....there are certain things you should always use a professional for: one is any legal matter, second is coloring or waxing any part of your body..lol.</p>

<p>On rereading CalMom's post, she is exactly technically legally correct. However there are both pharmacists and attorneys practicing in California right now based on a judge signing an order directing the clerk of courts to black out the dismissed arrests. guess what, the clerk did . Yeah maybe I had no letter of the law to ask for it, but the first lesson I learned in law school back in 1969 was "it never hurts to ask"</p>

<p>In Wisconsin it is illegal to discriminate based on arrest or conviction record. With conviction records it usually plays out that if the conviction is job-related it can be considered as a reason for not hiring.</p>

<p>CalMom and TsDad raise an important point that state law does govern each case. California, Pennsylvania, Virginia and DC are all I can really really be right about. But again, after 33 years of doing law, I always found that having a judge sign an order pretty much took care of whatever.</p>

<p>The fact of the matter is that even if you get your record sealed and expunged, it is not a 100% deal. If someone is very, very good in investigating you, it can come up. Maybe it won't, but I would not bet on it if you are swearing to a Senate investigative committe or other very high level organization that you have NEVER been in trouble with the law. Someone might remember. Now that is an extreme case, and very few people find themselves in that situation. BUt those who do will curse the lie based on the promise made that noone will ever find out. You don't know what sort of high profile postion you may find yourself eligible for.<br>
For practical purposes, as the parents have stated, companies ask about certain level felonies, not about arrests. BUt the record is there for the arrest, and anyone who really wants to do a thorough search can find it, especially if someone you know happens to remember the incident. Can't erase the memories. FOr nearly all purposes, you won't be asked about that category of offense, but if you are in some super high, potentially reach to the sky security type or political position, you had better not lie. You do not want to show up on the front page of some rag exposing it. BUt this is extreme, extreme, extreme. I bring this up only because it CAN happen, and I personally believe that your attitude towards the incident can make or break the impact it has on your life. Furtively hiding something like that paints one picture of a person. Discretion, but honestly straightforward when directly asked about such cases, is another way to go. Blaring the info everywhere is another route, but unless you are going for a "bad boy" rep, not wise. Heck, my brother who did military clearances says you are asked if have had something expunged or erased or sealed for some purposes. You dang well better 'fess up then, because you are otherwise lying.</p>

<p>You can avoid the expense and hassle of attorneys & expungement with a candid rendition of President Bush's mantra: " When I was young and irresponsbile, I was young and irresponsible". It is a plus to be able to truthfully say that any employer will not have to worry about reading an article in the paper about you being arrested for PI since you learned your lesson.</p>

<p>So basically I'm dealing with what I expected - a company may or may not do a background check, and if they do they generally don't (in some cases aren't allowed to) base their decision to hire me based on my one run in with the law. </p>

<p>Now I do have another question. How exactly does one of these 'outside services' conduct their background check investigation? I know they aren't exactly cheap, but what is it they do that makes their efforts worth a premium? Why can't your average joe conduct a 'background check' on somebody at the jail - all the information IS on public domain...</p>

<p>The average joe can conduct a criminal records background check; you just have to pay for it. The cheapest I can find on the internet is $13. Employers generally subcribe to a reputable service which allows them unlimited checks for whatever their subscription fee is. Obviously if you are very much concerned about this, it might be worth your while to occasionally run a check on yourself to find out what is there.</p>