Expunge DUI after 3 year probation first offense?

[kipwinger]

I have read some lawyer web sites that say if your First DUI is your first offense ever and no criminal record before you can file to have it dismissed in court, however if you get a second dui it still stands as a second offense. Does anyone know anything about this?

I think it sounds fair if you never had any trouble before with the law or the dmv before the dui.

[kc0iv]

I have read some lawyer web sites that say if your First DUI is your first offense ever and no criminal record before you can file to have it dismissed in court, however if you get a second dui it still stands as a second offense. Does anyone know anything about this?

I think it sounds fair if you never had any trouble before with the law or the dmv before the dui.

If you look at: http://www.1800duilaws.com/article/expungement101.asp In their example California Penal Code Section 1203.4. You will notice they say and I

The order shall state, and the probationer shall be informed, that the order does not relieve him or her of the obligation to disclose the conviction in response to any direct question contained in any questionnaire or application for public office, for licensure by any state or local agency, or for contracting with the California State Lottery.

I think you will find most, if not all the other states, have the same rules. Notice the phrase "in response to any direct question contained in any questionnaire." Since most employment application says "Have you ever been convicted of a DUI?" I would think you would have to answer -- Yes.

That is 1/2 cent.

kc0iv

[thebaldeagle655]

for public office, for licensure by any state or local agency, or for contracting with the California State Lottery.

You need to read all of the quote when you use one, it doesn't say anything about employment applications unless for public office, licensure, or lottery contracting. IF he gets it expunged, there should be no need to disclose the DUI.

[DD60]

I think it sounds fair if you never had any trouble before with the law or the dmv before the dui.



How is that fair.? You take a risk of whiping out and injuring people with just the first offense. Only an idiot would try it at all. Anyone trying it a second time would be a MUCH BIGGER idiot. There is no excuse for DWI or DUI. It is EASILY preventable. Don't drink and don't drive. Stay away from drugs period. That will usually help with the IQ level also. It is that simple.

[DaveP]

I think it sounds fair if you never had any trouble before with the law or the dmv before the dui.



How is that fair.? You take a risk of whiping out and injuring people with just the first offense. Only an idiot would try it at all. Anyone trying it a second time would be a MUCH BIGGER idiot. There is no excuse for DWI or DUI. It is EASILY preventable. Don't drink and don't drive. Stay away from drugs period. That will usually help with the IQ level also. It is that simple.

Hate to tell you but the world IS NOT black and white.

[kc0iv]

for public office, for licensure by any state or local agency, or for contracting with the California State Lottery.

You need to read all of the quote when you use one, it doesn't say anything about employment applications unless for public office, licensure, or lottery contracting. IF he gets it expunged, there should be no need to disclose the DUI.

If you read the article discussing this you noticed there is split of opinion among those in the legal community about exactly what this means for those applying for a job and confronted with the question "have you ever been convicted of a crime?" While this author opine you don't have to declare this on an application (other than those listed ,public office, for licensure by any state or local agency, or for contracting with the California State Lottery).

However, what I find odd just two paragraphs later he/she says and I quote "It is worth noting that applications to become a Peace Officer, while not mentioned in the statute, typically require disclosure of expunged convictions." If he/she says it is limited to those listed in the statute how can he/she then says it is OK on applications to become a Peace Officer?

The one thing this author did caution was to be careful how you answer that question on an employment application. One of the surest ways to be terminated is to lie on an employment application. And let's face it if the person was convicted of DUI then he/she was convicted plain and simple. That is what the question is asking.

What most people seem to not understand is any record of someone over the age of 18 has most likely been captured my some agency. Be it an insurance company or one of the credit reporting agencies. Or god forbid the dreaded DAC. So someone might think by having the court expunge his/her record no one will know about this DUI. Fifty years ago that might have been the case but in the world today with the computer interconnections the chances of pretty slim no one will know about that DUI conviction.

It is my opinion the best thing an applicant can do is be truthful.

Looking a little farther on expungement I find the state of Utah has a 10 year limit before an Alcohol related traffic offenses can be expunged.

It appears Maryland does not allow the expungement of Traffic violations.

New Jersey does not allow an expungement for a DWI.

In most cases Washington does not allow the expungement for a DWI.

These are a few of the states I check in respect to expungement for a DWI.

I found an article on http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/us...in&oref=slogin written By Adam Liptak in the The New York Times that talks about expungement and how it is not what people thinks it is.

kc0iv

[golfhobo]

KayCee said:

And let's face it if the person was convicted of DUI then he/she was convicted plain and simple. That is what the question is asking.

Well.... no surprise..... I disagree. First, note that the author is a nationally recognized authority.

Second..... consider THIS quote:

Technically, the expungement under 1203.4 is not an eraser of one's criminal record. What is really happening is set out in the statute: the plea of guilty or no contest is being withdrawn and a plea of not guilty is being entered, or, if there was a trial, the verdict of guilty is being set aside. In either case, the court is thereafter dismissing the charging document.

As noted in the statute, the probationer is, thereafter, "released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which he or she has been convicted," with certain exceptions.

Other than the specific exceptions.... public office, licensure, and Lottery affiliation, it is CLEAR that the guilty verdict was "reversed, set aside, or expunged" and the person is relieved of all disabilities of a conviction.

I believe he mentioned "peace officer" because SOME are "elected officials" and others are LICENSED to carry firearms and act as a representative of the court.

I READ the whole article, and it seems clear to me. Since an Employment Application (for other than the specified instances) is EXACTLY what the "relief" is for.... one would NOT have to disclose a "conviction" that is no longer a "conviction."

Note, however, that is specifically informs that a 1st offense of DUI (for example) can and WILL be considered in the sentencing of a second offense because it is a "priorable" offense (even though it was expunged.) This explains the original posters comments.... which were absolutely correct.

SOME employment applications ask "Were you ever convicted of?" Others state "Do you have any prior convictions of?" It really doesn't matter. Per this article, any prior convictions that were expunged, are NO LONGER CONVICTIONS, and really never WERE (by law.)

If you plead guilty, and were convicted upon your plea, that plea is rescinded and therefore cannot be the cause of a conviction. If you were convicted, the conviction is set aside, and therefore there IS NO conviction.

Nothwithstanding your comments about the computer age, there ARE laws governing this (i.e. the fair credit reporting act.) Yes, one should be careful and wise in the response (even the author advises this) but an expunged conviction is a NO conviction per the California law you referenced.

The law is QUITE clear as to the instances where it doesn't apply. Your standard trucking job application does NOT fit those exceptions. I'm sure, if you care to check... which I don't... that you will find numerous statutes under the EEOC law (about the size of a phone book) that address this "protection."

It's ONE thing to tell newbies that trucking companies MIGHT not adhere to law in hiring practices.... and I can't necessarily disagree. But, it is another to try to find ambiguities in LAWS that aren't THERE.

I guess you can say that's only 1/2 cent from ME.... if you're so inclined. :wink:

[golfhobo]

Let me reitereate this:

In either case, the court is thereafter dismissing the charging document.

That doesn't mean you have been PARDONED for an offense OR a conviction. [that is why there is a legal difference between a PARDON and an EXPUNGEMENT.]

It means they have dismissed the charging DOCUMENT. Therefore, no plea of guilty was accepted, and no conviction was imposed. If a trial took place.... it never TOOK place.

If someone asks you if you've ever been "convicted" of a crime, you can say not only was I not convicted.... I was never even CHARGED.

[kc0iv]

As the article stated "...there is split of opinion among those in the legal community about exactly what this means for those applying for a job..."

Notice it says a split by the legal community. Not my a couple of guys that read a few websites.

As I said an applicant should be truthful. Not by some lawyer tricks.

I guess it boils down to what a person's understanding is about being truthful and what it really means.

kc0iv