Please help - Do I have to disclose a sealed record?

[Everskyward]

I'm sure you're correct, but I'm also sure you know that a formal CHRC requires sending prints to the FBI. Why is that as compared to running the background check you descibe?
There must be something more to it.

I'm guessing that they can run a background check without your prints, but they take the prints in 121 and 135 over 12,500 lbs. because they run them through the print database as another check. Whether or not they check people's background routinely is another question. I don't know.

 

[bbchien]

Well you could always lie. For some, it's a way of life consistent with the already existing criminal history .

They'll just revoke you PILOT cert when they discover. Then it woud be three strikes, not 2. Sigh. FAA's view: there is no place for a liar on ANY flight deck.


The question says "have you ever in your life...", not "is there an easily accessible record of...". And you can bet there is a record of an expungement....if not the file itself. Expungement is after all a "state" notion, and is NOT a "state" notion.

 

[midlifeflyer]

In case anyone is wondering why I haven't given even a "generally, not advice" answer to the question, it's because I don't have one.

Most state expunction laws specifically authorize a "no" answer to criminal history questions. To use a domestic relations analogy, it's not a divorce, it's an annulment - the conviction never happened. By legal/regulatory definition, "no" is not a lie.

But, the effect of a State expunction on answering a criminal history question on a Federal application has, AFAIK not been tested in a way that gives even close to a definitive answer. I've read a few NTSB falsification cases and, as I mentioned before, they involve situations in which there really wasn't an expunction. Language about what they "might" do if presented with a real expunction varies from case to case. Other lawyers I've discussed the question with informally have given both answers. I can easily support either answer.

Which is among the many reasons this kind of question requires specific, one on one targeted advice, not SGOTI.

 

[PaulMillner]

The questions rarely ask "If we look, will we find an arrest/conviction?" The questions usually ask "Have you ever been arrested/convicted?" Even with your record "sealed," what's the honest answer to that question?

At least for one young man I've assisted, the expungement order from the judge stated that the event in question is hereby declared to never have occurred...

So I guess, legally, the answer is no... unless you want to hold that judge in contempt? Depends on how orders are worded in your jurisdiction...

In this case, the question asked is whether there's a HISTORY... so I suppose if the court makes the history go away, the answer is no, eh?

>> History of (1) any arrest(s) and/or conviction(s) involving driving while intoxicated by, while impaired by, or while under the influence of alcohol or a drug; or (2) history of any arrest(s), and/or conviction(s), and/or administrative action(s) involving an offense(s) which resulted in the denial, suspension, cancellation, or revocation of driving privileges or which resulted in attendance at an educational or a rehabilitation program.

>> History of nontraffic conviction(s) (misdemeanors or felonies).

Always pays to read the actual wording, rather than making moralistic assumptions.

Paul

 

[midlifeflyer]

At least for one young man I've assisted, the expungement order from the judge stated that the event in question is hereby declared to never have occurred...

So I guess, legally, the answer is no... unless you want to hold that judge in contempt? Depends on how orders are worded in your jurisdiction...

In this case, the question asked is whether there's a HISTORY... so I suppose if the court makes the history go away, the answer is no, eh?

..and there you have one version of the answer that hasn't been tested

 

[Lindberg]

The correct legal answer is not necessarily the obvious, moral, or "right" answer. A tomato is the fruit of the tomato plant. But a farmer would likely get the wrong answer if he asks a botanist whether vegetable import tariffs apply to his tomatoes because, according to the Supreme Court, a tomato is legally a vegetable.

 

[midlifeflyer]

The correct legal answer is not necessarily the obvious, moral, or "right" answer. A tomato is the fruit of the tomato plant. But a farmer would likely get the wrong answer if he asks a botanist whether vegetable import tariffs apply to his tomatoes because, according to the Supreme Court, a tomato is legally a vegetable.

It's even more complicated than that. A tomato is a real thing. So was the common trade usage at the time that referred to the botanical "fruit" as a trade "vegetable," which led to that silly, especially in hindsight, 19th Century decision.

The event that led to a conviction is a real thing, but a "crime," a "conviction," a "misdemeanor," a "felony" and an "expunction" aren't. They are legal creations to begin with. And "expunction" doesn't mean it never happened in the real world, just that the legally-created records of the legally-created process have been removed by yet another legally-created process.

As I tell my expunction clients, who are generally dealing with trying to get a job to feed their families or turn their lives around, nothing really goes away these days. Newspaper archives, social media posts, out of date private search databases, friends blabbing. Expunction removes the official record of the event (in some states, even the expunction paperwork and order are not maintained as an official record), but that does not mean people can't find out about the event or that a conviction took place at some time in the past.

Expunction laws usually prohibit employer use of expunged convictions (helpful but no guarantee), but then add to the mix, federalism and the idea that a state can't tell the Feds what to do in administering federal laws, and you can start having some real fun arguing this on either side.