DUI from 9 years ago

[mscard88]

No I don't. It's a matter of integrity and that is priceless.

No James, and this is why.

 

[X3 Skier]

When you're in a hole, stop digging.

Cheers

 

[jordane93]

If a tree falls down and nobody hears, did it still fall down? Of course it did. The OP's son wants to be honest about his past. Kudos. Hope it works out for him

 

[Palmpilot]

Did I say bad advise, please, I c l e a r l y said he might have a vested interest in folks going through the whole process with him, not that that's a bad thing, just a fact...

"Might" is not a fact, it's speculation.

 

[midlifeflyer]

This has nothing to do with whether he beat the rap. It's about the arrest.
Expungement, is a state notion. Unless he beat the rap in less than a perfectly timed less than one month cycle, it's on a federal datatape.

Folks can argue the "should" about this all day.

I have only looked very briefly into the issue but I would suggest that reliance on expungement (and nothing I've seen in this thread tells me whether or not there has been any state expungement or, even if there was one, what was its scope) is risky. There are about a dozen NTSB cases that deal with the issue and the best I can say about them is that they are inconclusive.

As @Tarheelpilot suggested, they usually come up in the context of a certificate revocation for falsifying the medical application. Not a good place to be under any circumstances. Only one I am aware of even deals with a situation in which there was a proved expungement. That went in favor of the pilot, but it was a federal expungement statute. More common (refer to my earlier point about what people know about their own records) and the criminal process) involve pilots who thought their records were or would would be expunged, but they weren't. Some of the more recent cases have language that "sounds like" a state expungement of the right type with the right scope would justify a "no" answer. But even those indicate an uphill battle.

So whether one wants to argue "accuracy" or "truth" or "justice" or "the American way," relying on expungement without real advice (not from SGOTI) on its possible application to the FAA medical or 61.15 reporting and the risk of relying on it, seems to me to be a pretty bad idea.

 

[Z06tink72]

The FAA checks the fbi arrest database. That database is linked to state and local jurisdictions in most cases.

As far as I can tell, they don't check the FBI database anymore. The GAO Operation Safe Pilot report states the following:

However, in May 2007, FAA lost access to NCIC after the Justice Department concluded FAA’s investigations unit did not have a criminal justice function and therefore had no need to access databases containing criminal information

Here's the link , see page 14.

 

[wsuffa]

Folks can argue the "should" about this all day.

I have only looked very briefly into the issue but I would suggest that reliance on expungement (and nothing I've seen in this thread tells me whether or not there has been any state expungement or, even if there was one, what was its scope) is risky. There are about a dozen NTSB cases that deal with the issue and the best I can say about them is that they are inconclusive.

As @Tarheelpilot suggested, they usually come up in the context of a certificate revocation for falsifying the medical application. Not a good place to be under any circumstances. Only one I am aware of even deals with a situation in which there was a proved expungement. That went in favor of the pilot, but it was a federal expungement statute. More common (refer to my earlier point about what people know about their own records) and the criminal process) involve pilots who thought their records were or would would be expunged, but they weren't. Some of the more recent cases have language that "sounds like" a state expungement of the right type with the right scope would justify a "no" answer. But even those indicate an uphill battle.

So whether one wants to argue "accuracy" or "truth" or "justice" or "the American way," relying on expungement without real advice (not from SGOTI) on its possible application to the FAA medical or 61.15 reporting and the risk of relying on it, seems to me to be a pretty bad idea.

if anyone has any illusions about expungement, take a look at the entry requirements for most countries, including the US and Canada. Last time I looked, you still must declare arrests a or convictions, whether expunged or not.

 

[mtuomi]

if anyone has any illusions about expungement, take a look at the entry requirements for most countries, including the US and Canada. Last time I looked, you still must declare arrests a or convictions, whether expunged or not.

Not the US, nothing asks you to declare all arrests or convictions.

 

[wsuffa]

Not the US, nothing asks you to declare all arrests or convictions.

I suggest that anyone who wants to rely on this advice research it for themselves & see what the law and USCIS requirements are.

 

[bbchien]

This is what happens when you can't remember which version of the truth you told last:
I managed to rescue this guy- but the Medical officers are not dummies. This guy had lawyered up and managed to bury a lot of stuff, but he could simply not remember which "version of the truth" he last told.

This turned out to be a DUI that ended infront of Daddy's house (Daddy was an attorney), but got pleaded to a MIP. And I thought I had seen it all.

It all came out in the wash but was a very high priced "rescue". I know they considered the "Martha Stewart solution" for this guy.

 

[mtuomi]

I suggest that anyone who wants to rely on this advice research it for themselves & see what the law and USCIS requirements are.

You should read about Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude. Only if you apply for a visa you are asked if you have ever been convicted of a crime, nothing about arrests. For visa waiver process and ESTA, they ask about crimes that involved moral turpitude, or a controlled substance. Nothing about general arrests / convictions.

DUIs are not CIMT's, and have no effect on your visa process (apart from immigrant visas requiring a substance dependency evaluation (DSM4) if you have 2 in 10 years).
My I-551 is about a month old, I know pretty well what they ask and where.

 

[midlifeflyer]

This is what happens when you can't remember which version of the truth you told last:
I managed to rescue this guy- but the Medical officers are not dummies. This guy had lawyered up and managed to bury a lot of stuff, but he could simply not remember which "version of the truth" he last told.

This turned out to be a DUI that ended infront of Daddy's house (Daddy was an attorney), but got pleaded to a MIP. And I thought I had seen it all.

It all came out in the wash but was a very high priced "rescue". I know they considered the "Martha Stewart solution" for this guy.

Ahhh. The mild version of the letter . You should post the one that informs the pilot of the denial and falsification investigation.

 

[timwinters]

Isn't it amazing how everything here has to end up being a pizzing contest?!?!

Hang in there Bruce! See you in a couple of days. James sent me $5 and told me to buy you your first beer!

 

[bluerooster]

Not in the database, never happened.

It's in there, just that only certian folks can gain access to it. FAA are "certian folks".

Besides does the IRS report any extra money you could have got back?

Yes. Has happened to me two years in a row now.

Half the time the courts withhold information, the police are allowed to lie to you, show them the same honor they show you

Sounds like a good plan, untill it jumps up to bite you in the rear end. Then it really bites hard.

To the OP, 9 years may seem like a long time to most, but in the eyes of the guvment, it just as well be yesterday.
The person in question can expect a letter from OKC outlining what must be done within a specified period of time in order to keep the medical issued. It may- or may not, be expensive. But will require some legwork, on the part of the recipient of said letter.