Seeking Direction on Poor Choice Made

I am curious, if someone gets arrested because they happen to be standing next to a crime being committed and then the charges are dismissed when everyone realizes the person was a bystander, how would that be any different from what happened to this kid. I realize that the person we are talking about actually did commit a crime, but in both cases the charges were dismissed. I would imagine the explanation of why the charges were dismissed would make a difference, but someone looking at a person's record wouldnt know this and view both people the same
 
As a retired Police Officer I felt it might help to clear up terms. OP, your son was "arrested". A citation to appear in court for a misdemeanor charge is an arrest. He was identified to the officers satisfaction and because the misdemeanor did not occur in the officer's presence he was released on a promise to appear. An arrest doesn't always mean physical custody. You sound like a wonderful family (and parent). Your son is very fortunate to have such a parent. Everyone makes mistakes. Im sure he will be fine. It will be one of those experiences that he will grow from. I wish you all the best!
 
He was not arrested. A citation was given to him with a date to appear in court. He contacted the DA immediately who in turn had him complete that program online prior to his court date. When he showed up and the judge called his name, the DA said something to the effect of 'program such and such completed, motion (or move) to dismiss'. And that was the end. We have since pulled his record and it does show a charge of retail fraud and it shows 'dismissed' as the outcome. I don't know what else to say. My concern is how this will affect his appointment. . . .and at this point, we still do not know.

A citation is an arrest - it's semantics - he was charged with with what sounds like a crime. The fact that it was dismissed doesn't mean it wont show up in a criminal background check - the arrest will still show up - maybe the dismissal gets reported and shows up as well. Even if it is expunged, it will likely still show up in a criminal background check. It is almost impossible to get arrest information out of the FBI computers once it is entered.

Your son should be proactive - report it, report what he has learned from it, and hope it doesn't effect his appointment. Actions have consequences, though, and the forethought that went into planning and executing the crime will likely be a concern.

That's good.

I am curious as to why it would even show up, if it was "dismissed". Maybe an attorney could help him with that?

I understand your unwillingness to go to an attorney to get this expunged from his record (because it did happen, and why would you want to say that it didn't happen when it did?), but (as I have found before) the attorneys around the Forum would counsel you to do just that. They would say that since this option is available and legal, why would you not do it?

To me, there is a dilemma, there. To an attorney, there is not. This is why if I need legal advice, I don't pay any attention to what my "gut" tells me, and talk with an attorney.
When someone is arrested, fingerprints are sent to the FBI, who maintains a nationwide database of arrest records. Dispositions of charges are also sent to the FBI, which is why it is showing as dismissed. Even if a charge is expunged, it will still likely show up in the FBI database - so anyone accessing the FBI database for a background check will see the original charge. Expungement generally only applies at the local level - ie the local courthouse, and maybe the local police who charged the individual.
 
I think a trip back to court for a detailed explanation of this "arrest". Court appearance w/o photos & prints ('booked') makes no sense. Court should be able to explain if actually arrested or not.
 
I think a trip back to court for a detailed explanation of this "arrest". Court appearance w/o photos & prints ('booked') makes no sense. Court should be able to explain if actually arrested or not.
That's not the court's job. OP won't get the answers he seeks there. He needs to talk to a really good criminal law attorney in his jurisdiction.
 
It seems from what the mom said that they arent going to clean up the mess. They were able to help make most of the punishment go away, but it seems from what she has said, they dont want to hide the fact that he was arrested. A mistake in my opinion but everyone handles things differently. I have to imagine if that I was in that situation, i would have asked my son what he was thinking and I am sure he would have said "I dont know"
 
What I've learned from my on sons' experiences and discussions with our local law enforcement and juvenile prosecutors in the last year or so (Mainly for lurkers): in many cases, a citation or arrest does NOT involve photo ("mug shot") or fingerprinting - particularly for juvenile offenses. Don't take the collection of photo or prints as the litmus test for whether or not there is a record (let's avoid the term "arrest" for now) of the encounter. And that's how I think such things should be viewed - as a law enforcement "encounters". In this day and age, police have to document every kind of interaction with a juvenile - for their protection and the protection of their police force. This becomes part of the permanent record. "Arrest" or "citation" are mainly semantics. Many police forces have become very proactive in addressing the most benign juvenile offenses because experience shows that early, meaningful interdiction in adverse juvenile misbehavior is the best indicator of recidivism prevention. What 20 years ago would go unrecorded by police now gets immediate addressing. It is the world we live in - and it's not all a bad thing.

I have to believe that SAs understand this and see this in the records of the applicants. If they disqualified every applicant with an encounter with the law, they would likely be turning away many terrific future officers. It is when we fall that we get the chance to show our character, not when we succeed.
 
That's not the court's job. OP won't get the answers he seeks there. He needs to talk to a really good criminal law attorney in his jurisdiction.
I disagree. I think it is the courts job to explain what what is going on to a defendant if he/she doesn't have a lawyer present as the hearing, trial, etc. Also, a visit to the court costs nothing while a visit to a lawyer does. No harm in going to one before paying a lawyer to explain what already happened.
 
I disagree. I think it is the courts job to explain what what is going on to a defendant if he/she doesn't have a lawyer present as the hearing, trial, etc. Also, a visit to the court costs nothing while a visit to a lawyer does. No harm in going to one before paying a lawyer to explain what already happened.
Wishful, I agree with you in principle, but in reality the court employees are typically very cagey and unwilling to state anything except reading to you what is on the paperwork, lest they be accused of giving you "legal advice." (experience from past experience in dealing with litigation as a former insurance claims adjuster).
 
What I've learned from my on sons' experiences and discussions with our local law enforcement and juvenile prosecutors in the last year or so (Mainly for lurkers): in many cases, a citation or arrest does NOT involve photo ("mug shot") or fingerprinting - particularly for juvenile offenses. Don't take the collection of photo or prints as the litmus test for whether or not there is a record (let's avoid the term "arrest" for now) of the encounter. And that's how I think such things should be viewed - as a law enforcement "encounters". In this day and age, police have to document every kind of interaction with a juvenile - for their protection and the protection of their police force. This becomes part of the permanent record. "Arrest" or "citation" are mainly semantics. Many police forces have become very proactive in addressing the most benign juvenile offenses because experience shows that early, meaningful interdiction in adverse juvenile misbehavior is the best indicator of recidivism prevention. What 20 years ago would go unrecorded by police now gets immediate addressing. It is the world we live in - and it's not all a bad thing.

I have to believe that SAs understand this and see this in the records of the applicants. If they disqualified every applicant with an encounter with the law, they would likely be turning away many terrific future officers. It is when we fall that we get the chance to show our character, not when we succeed.
My only comment would be that it is one thing if you got arrested prior to applying to an SA, but getting arrested after being accepted to an SA has to big a red flag. I am exaggerating, but if my son or daughter got accepted to an SA, I would wrap them in bubble wrap and not let them out of the house until they report in.
 
I disagree. I think it is the courts job to explain what what is going on to a defendant if he/she doesn't have a lawyer present as the hearing, trial, etc. Also, a visit to the court costs nothing while a visit to a lawyer does. No harm in going to one before paying a lawyer to explain what already happened.
This is Wishful thinking. See what I did there? It would be nice if that happened, but its not the way the system works. The judge and court personnel can't give legal advice to individuals. OP would waste half a day to see anyone and be no further ahead.
Wishful, I agree with you in principle, but in reality the court employees are typically very cagey and unwilling to state anything except reading to you what is on the paperwork, lest they be accused of giving you "legal advice." (experience from past experience in dealing with litigation as a former insurance claims adjuster).

Exactly.
 
I disagree. I think it is the courts job to explain what what is going on to a defendant if he/she doesn't have a lawyer present as the hearing, trial, etc. Also, a visit to the court costs nothing while a visit to a lawyer does. No harm in going to one before paying a lawyer to explain what already happened.

Not to beat a dead horse but I find it a bit amusing to watch this game of "telephone" play out. The OP knows exactly what has occurred. OP clearly stated that a criminal charge of retail fraud was filed by the District Attorney (DA). OP also said the case was adjudicated with her son completing an offenders training of some sort which satisfied the DA. OP is also aware of the criminal record that exist as a result. The question was not what was the criminal charge but how might it impact her son's appointment. The clarification was simply over the legal definition of arrest in this case. Thats been explained. Im sure everything will work out fine.
 
I find it almost disturbing how even the wisest and most senior posters here are ignoring the obvious.. I get trying to put a positive spin on this but its pretty difficult. "A cadet will not lie, cheat, or steal..." All of those were done AFTER acceptance. No way that appointment doesn't go to a more deserving candidate who didn't make a premeditated "bad decision".. I'm sorry to say it but let's be honest here.

How would you feel reading this after your Eagle Scout got a TWE??

Or if your child just as qualified was still on the outside looking in??

Again I'm sorry but that is the honest truth as I see it..
 
It is when we fall that we get the chance to show our character, not when we succeed.

This! I believe OP’s original question was, “How do I handle this and does it affect the offer of appointment?” And my first response was, “Tell USMA proactively and live with the consequences, rather than trying to hide it in hopes that they don’t find out.” In the end, they’ll find out. You’ll be much better off being the one who tells them and showing the appropriate remorse.

We can debate all day long the ins and outs of the legal side, what “expunged” means, and whether a lawyer should be involved. I call BS. You did wrong, own up to it, accept the consequences. That’s called “adulting.” It’s also a form of leadership, and USMA seeks leaders.
 
I find it almost disturbing how even the wisest and most senior posters here are ignoring the obvious.. I get trying to put a positive spin on this but its pretty difficult. "A cadet will not lie, cheat, or steal..." All of those were done AFTER acceptance. No way that appointment doesn't go to a more deserving candidate who didn't make a premeditated "bad decision".. I'm sorry to say it but let's be honest here.

How would you feel reading this after your Eagle Scout got a TWE??

Or if your child just as qualified was still on the outside looking in??

Again I'm sorry but that is the honest truth as I see it..
Got to say I completely agree! If I had a child that didn't get an appointment yet someone who committed fraud did I would be pretty annoyed!
 
As far as "security checks" (police record checks) go you are likely good to go as anything not a conviction or kept as active police records will usually not show up. Background checks on the other hand, do see ANYTHING, whether it has been expunged, dismissed, convicted, or diversion adjudicated, the record will be there when the investigator from DOD asks. Background Investigations for Security Clearance are far more "investigative" than the initial "police records check", they normally, for Secret Clearance or above get involved with your personal finances, anything "police" or even "social media".

*** IMHO*** Be up front. As Korab said, If there is a record of something IT WILL show up at some point before a security clearance is granted. Being honest and up front (anything from the store of manager would be good) and explaining things would go a long way to insuring there isn't going to be worry or anxiety down the road. Anything "expunged" is indeed only "local" and once DOD gets into the FBI's database he/she will see something.
 
Last edited:
I disagree. I think it is the courts job to explain what what is going on to a defendant if he/she doesn't have a lawyer present as the hearing, trial, etc. Also, a visit to the court costs nothing while a visit to a lawyer does. No harm in going to one before paying a lawyer to explain what already happened.

> Sorry Wishful, it is not the Court's job to explain or provide legal advice. You can of course go and ask. Unless you are in a small town, its unlikely that you will ever get to talk to the judge, and most Clerk's office are explicitly instructed not to provide legal advice.

There is an old saying, "Free Legal Advice is worth what you pay for it," and that comes with a caveat that anonymous free legal advice on the internet is probably more of a risk than getting free advice from someone you know. First, while the discussion is well meaning, the legal impact of OP son's proceeding is likely to be different under each state law, and maybe even at the jurisdictional level.

That said, the legal analysis of whether was an "arrest" or "record" in this situation is irrelevant. There is only one correct answer in this situation, and that is to self report to USMA, and deal with it. As others have noted, it will be discovered, and the cover up is often worse than the crime.

I don't think anyone here can predict how USMA can react ..I am sure this isn't the first time this situation has arisen, and I suspect that USMA has a policy. Theft by an 18 year old isn't a youthful indiscretion. Honor and integrity isn't something that is issued or begins on I-Day (or whatever its called at USMA), and accepting the consequences of your actions is every bit as important as not stealing.
 
I was curious about this, revisited. OP refers to ‘offer being rescinded,’ and also that he has an LOA and that he is in the reserves and at basic.

I’m confused. Does he have an appointment? Or no? I’m thinking no. Only the LOA.

Curious how this will play out...
 
Back
Top