Dear immigrer-ga;
Thank you for allowing me an opportunity to answer your interesting question.
As in most states, if a juvenile is arrested and the court does not
adjudicate the case (i.e. charges are dropped, a diversion program is
used, etc), and even in most cases where the child is actually
convicted but not charged as an adult, the answer is NO ? there will
be no lingering record on an FBI criminal history check.
Consider this description of what takes place in the state of Ohio:
?Defendants who complete their dispositions within the court specified
time frame will not have an official juvenile record.?
NCJJ - STATE JUVENILE JUSTICE PROFILES
http://www.ncjj.org/stateprofiles/profiles/OH04.asp?state=OH04.asp&topic=Profile
I should also point out that an FBI records check is the same for Ohio
as it is for every other state. My purpose for showing you the state
policy where Ohio is concerned was merely to support what I, as a
member of law enforcement myself, already knew to be a fact.
I hope you find that my research exceeds your expectations. If you
have any questions about my research please post a clarification
request prior to rating the answer. Otherwise, I welcome your rating
and your final comments and I look forward to working with you again
in the near future. Thank you for bringing your question to us.
Best regards;
Tutuzdad ? Google Answers Researcher
OTHER INFORMATION SOURCES
OHIO RULES OF THE COURT
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/Rules/
SEARCH STRATEGY
SEARCH ENGINES USED:
Google ://www.google.com
SEARCH TERMS USED:
OHIO
JUVENILE
RECORD
HISTORY
FBI |
Request for Answer Clarification by
immigrer-ga
on
03 Sep 2005 20:49 PDT
Thank you for your timely response. I should be happy with the "NO"
answer, and I mostly trust that it is true from your own experience in
law enforcement but I would like, if possible, to see in the words of
a reference web page how:
1) defendants where the court does not adjudicate the case will have a
clear record. The text you quoted, by my reading of your first link,
seems to fall under the context of juvenile diversions. Correct me if
I'm wrong but the diversion/disposition would need to come out of a
court ruling, would it not, leaving out situations where arrests were
made but there was no court session in which a court specified time
frame for completing a disposition would have been set.
2) I trust that Ohio is like other states when it comes to the FBI's
records checking, but I was hoping for something definitively stating
that the arrest record in the described situation would not be a part
of the FBI's records (regardless of the state the records would come
from). I just want to see something linking the fact that there would
be no 'lingering' record with the fact that the FBI wouldn't have that
record by any other means.
Regards,
|
Clarification of Answer by
tutuzdad-ga
on
04 Sep 2005 15:43 PDT
Let me first say that it may be impossible to prove this negative. In
other words, statutes normally dictate that which is INCLUDED or
REQUIRED by the law, not that which is DISINCLUDED or NOT REQUIRIED by
law.
As for your clarifications:
>>> 1) defendants where the court does not adjudicate the case will
have a clear record. The text you quoted, by my reading of your first
link, seems to fall under the context of juvenile diversions. Correct
me if I'm wrong but the diversion/disposition would need to come out
of a court ruling, would it not, leaving out situations where arrests
were made but there was no court session in which a court specified
time frame for completing a disposition would have been set.
The answer is NOT NECESSARILY.
Cases can indeed make it to, or even through the judicial system and
not be adjudicated. Diversions are typically designed to prevent
lingering criminal records and often times when a case is diverted it
is wiped completely from the record provided the terms of the
diversion are successfully met. Usually (at least in my experience)
when a case is diverted the entire matter is dismissed and technically
forgotten where a criminal record is concerned. Even so, once a
juvenile turns 18 his or her criminal record is sealed and does not
show up on an routine FBI criminal background (criminal history)
unless that juvenile was charged as an adult.
>>> 2) I trust that Ohio is like other states when it comes to the
FBI's records checking, but I was hoping for something definitively
stating that the arrest record in the described situation would not be
a part of the FBI's records (regardless of the state the records would
come from). I just want to see something linking the fact that there
would be no 'lingering' record with the fact that the FBI wouldn't
have that record by any other means.
Its important to understand that I did not say or indicate in any way
that the FBI would not have a means of KNOWING is someone had been
arrested as a juvenile, what I said was that ?there will be no
lingering record on an FBI CRIMINAL HISTORY CHECK.?
ANY time a person is arrested and that arrest report and/or
fingerprints are submitted to the FBI, the FBI will have a record of
that arrest ? FOREVER ? regardless of the age of the person arrested
or what they might have been arrested for. As I indicated once a
juvenile turns 18 his or her criminal record is SEALED and does not
show up on an ROUTINE FBI CRIMINAL BACKGROUND check.
Not that I think it would affect the answer in any way, but perhaps it
would help if you elaborated on the details of this hypothetical
arrest that resulted in ?no court case or conviction?.
Tutuzdad-ga
|
Request for Answer Clarification by
immigrer-ga
on
05 Sep 2005 15:55 PDT
Tutuzdad-ga, thanks for the clarification.
I understand that no document may exist stating that certain records
are not allowed to be kept, thus making it impossible to prove that
they wouldn't still have such records (unsealed). But the point
really is about what shows up the actual FBI "rap sheet" criminal
record check results, agreed.
An important "if" remains, which you mentioned, and that is whether or
not juvenile records are automatically sealed at 18. You state that
they are sealed and unavailable to a criminal record check, and I've
heard before that juvenile records are sealed when you become an
adult, however from what research I've done this does not actually
seem to be the case! It seems that you must request to have those
records sealed, rather than it happening automatically, and otherwise
they are left unsealed. I think this point is important and would
appreciate if you could clarify it.
The particulars of the arrests: one curfew violation where he was
released at the site of arrest to the parents, and one resisting
(another person's) arrest and taken to the station and held before the
parents came.
|
Clarification of Answer by
tutuzdad-ga
on
05 Sep 2005 17:52 PDT
I don't know it its acceptable to you or not but I have been a
certified NCIC operator since 1982 and in that time I have had
occassion to run THOUSANDS of criminal history checks. I have never
once come across a record that contained a juvenile criminal history
nor have I ever known of anyone who has requested or has been
instructed to request that a criminal history be sealed when they
turned eighteen.
As for your scenarios, relax; it sounds to me as if you have nothing
to fear. By your description the juvenile was detained and
*technically* arrested by definition, however the matter was never
pursued. I know, I know - it isn't legal for police to un-arrest
someone but the truth is that police officers (who also happen to be
paprents, grandparents and human beings) understand that kids will be
kids and occassionally they do bend the rules by scaring the crap out
of a kid then turning him over to his paretns without any further
involvment of the judicial system. It sounds to me that this his what
happened.
If there was no fine, no plea, no imposition of punishment or
exhoneration by a court then there IS NO RECORD because NOTHING
HAPPENED. Even the FBI would not be able to dig this up. As I
mentioned, records aof arrest are forwared to the FBI in the form of
(1) arrest forms, or (2) fingerprints. Since there was no arrest form
(evidenced by the fact that there was no eventual criminal case) then
there were no fingerprints. Without either of the things necessary to
enable a State Identification Number (SID) or an FBI control number to
be issued, there would be no record - period.
tutuzdad-ga
|
Clarification of Answer by
tutuzdad-ga
on
06 Sep 2005 16:18 PDT
PS: This might be of interest to you...from the National Crime
Information Center (NCIC), the system over which an FBI criminal
history check is transmitted, outlines its information disemmination
policy where juveniles are concerned (capitilzation is mine for
emphasis sake):
"Categories of individuals covered by the system:
4. Juveniles who have been ADJUDICATED delinquent and who have escaped
or absconded from custody, even though no arrest warrants were issued.
Juveniles who HAVE BEEN CHARGED with the commission of a delinquent
act that would be a crime if committed by an adult, and who have fled
from the state where the act was committed."
National Crime Information Center (NCIC)
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fbi/is/ncic.htm
So, suffice it to say that unless a juvenile record falls in one of
these specific categories such a record WILL NOT, as I said, be
included in a background check.
tutuzdad-ga
|
