Sealed record disclosure

[tdoginallen]

I am applying for my CHL and have a class A misd sealed (order of non disclosure) in April of last year. For purposes of the DPS rules, this does not count as a conviction so I am eligible for a CHL.

My questions are:

By law, I can answer "no" to any question asking if I have been arrested. Does anyone have experience with this and did they answer yes or no? Answering "no" could raise a red flag if they found it, but I can legally do so.

My other question, if I do disclose, can I send copies of the order of non disclosure or do I have to get some kind of official sealed document from the court?

Thanks!

[MoJo]

Sorry friend, for a CHL you MUST report all arrests and convictions except for class C traffic offenses sealed or not. You have to wait 5 years from date of conviction.

[tdoginallen]

Actually, that's not correct. If sealed, 5 year rule does not apply.

Looking for anyone with experience in what my original question relates to. Need for disclosure even if not legally required to, as well as documentation requirement.

Thx

[Crossfire]

I doubt you will get a reply here that is anything more than opinion. And the only opinion that really matters is the one from DPS. If I were in your shoes, I would give them a call next week. Before sending in, or disclosing, anything.

[knljr]

...where does it say that? I'm not lawyer, but sealing just looks like people are hiding something...and that may work for potential employers that are doing backgrounds on people - although they'll still see you have a conviction but they won't know what for, which may make it worse...but it ain't gonna work for the FBI.

As someone mentioned, you need to call DPS and tell them you're going through the application process and ask what you should do. Get the info of the person you talked to in case you need to follow-up.

[tdoginallen]

Thanks Crossfire. You're right - a few opinions, some who don't know what "sealed" means or what "convicted" means as it relates to CHL statutes.

Just wondered if anyone had gone through the same thing.

For those who responded:

Tx law states that a sealed record, or order of non disclosure allows the person to omit the fact that they were ever arrested.

Second, a sealed record is not considered a conviction for CHL purposes.

[TheMilkMan]

As I recall from my personal experience is that the arrest can be expunged, where by a judge's order is sent to all LE departments relevant to the arrest ordering the destruction of all files related to the arrest. After this you can claim in all instances except under oath in criminal court, you were not arrested (even in that exception, you may say only that it was expunged). This has no bearing on a conviction just the arrest. If the resulting conviction/no contest has a non-disclosure order on it, that hides it from anyone searching your record except for some government entities such as law enforcement related ones for example. You may put down "no" on questions regarding an arrest, but the final disposition on the class A will be found. Some may say to put "yes" on the arrest part, but your court order says you may legally say "no".

In my past I've had a conviction for something that I wasn't arrested for (taken downtown as it were), and also an arrest for something I wasn't convicted of (rightly so I might add). I left out the arrest because it was expunged. I did include the conviction disposition info from the other instance, however. The final disposition had a non-disclose order but if you do a bit of research you will see DPS is an agency that is not "blocked" by this. I was lucky enough to have already passed the 5 year ban by the time I wanted my CHL.

I hope this helps, even though it doesnt look good.

[The Annoyed Man]

In my past I've had a conviction for something that I wasn't arrested for (taken downtown as it were), and also an arrest for something I wasn't convicted of (rightly so I might add). I left out the arrest because it was expunged. I did include the conviction disposition info from the other instance, however. The final disposition had a non-disclose order but if you do a bit of research you will see DPS is an agency that is not "blocked" by this. I was lucky enough to have already passed the 5 year ban by the time I wanted my CHL.

I hope this helps, even though it doesnt look good.

I don't mean to be critical, but I am curious....as I am 59 years old and have managed to never be arrested, tried, or convicted of anything in my life. And I wasn't an angel child growing up.....

But I am curious as to how you could be convicted of something without having been arrested for it? "Arrested but not convicted" I understand. But "convicted but not arrested" is a process I've never heard of before. How do you get convicted of a crime for which you've never been arrested?

Am I missing something?

[apostate]

It's possible to receive a ticket or other summons to appear, typically for minor offenses, and have your day in court without being cuffed and stuffed along the way.

[Dragonfighter]

It's possible to receive a ticket or other summons to appear, typically for minor offenses, and have your day in court without being cuffed and stuffed along the way.

Isn't a ticket an arrest? Granted I am going on 50 year old terminology, but my dad (who had been an Ohio Higway Patrol officer) came home and told his wife and six year old son that he had been arrested. I had visions of cuffs and jail and he explained to me that when an officer stops and cites you, you have been arrested and released with a promise to answer the charge.

Though a "ticket" would be rare for a Class A offense...at least I would think so. I am in TAM's boat, probably should have but haven't had anything but tickets on my record. The "arrest" question used to be asked on job apps but is now illegal to ask that. But I really don't know how that figures in the issue at hand. Maybe Charles can impart some wisdom.

[TheMilkMan]

It was an arrest in the official sense but not in the cuffed and taken in sense. That's why I was trying to convey in parenthesis, but perhaps that was less than clear. It was a class B misdemeanor. Because with a conviction it is implied you have been arrested, I put that down on my application. I mentioned that one instance because I have heard some people say that an arrest doesn't count if you haven't been taken in and processed. They normally refer to tickets for moving violations and MIP/MIC type things, but I wanted to caveat that generalization for the OP in case it was pertinent to his situation, not to mention document it for posterity.

Edited for grammer

[Lambda Force]

For those who responded:

Tx law states that a sealed record, or order of non disclosure allows the person to omit the fact that they were ever arrested.

Second, a sealed record is not considered a conviction for CHL purposes.

If you're sure then go ahead and apply without disclosing it. What's the worst that can happen?

[jikky54]

I am a lawyer. It's a shame, but "sealed" means nothing when you're dealing with the government. I had a client with a similar problem. It seems the only thing they're willing to recognize is a true expungement. It's a tough decision whether or not to disclose it, but I can promise you, they'll see the arrest whether you disclose it or not.

[Ameer]

Isn't a ticket an arrest? Granted I am going on 50 year old terminology, but my dad (who had been an Ohio Higway Patrol officer) came home and told his wife and six year old son that he had been arrested. I had visions of cuffs and jail and he explained to me that when an officer stops and cites you, you have been arrested and released with a promise to answer the charge.

It depends who you ask. The CHL department only wants arrests where you were fingerprinted and booked. They don't need you to lists tickets or citations.

But I also heard a traffic stop is technically an arrest. If so, shouldn't cops technically have to read the Miranda rights?

[srothstein]

Ameer,

In the Court of Criminal Appeals decision (Kurtz) that said that a traffic stop was an arrest, they specifically said it did not rise to the status of a custodial arrest that would trigger Miranda. The key point is that Miranda does not say you must be warned of your rights when you are arrested, but when you are being asked questions while in custody whether arrested or not.