Re-screening CAP members

[SeattleSarge]

True enough...

But I would submit that we really haven't properly screened our members to this point.

PTA volunteers working with my kid's teacher get a more comprehensive background check than CAP members...

-SeattleSarge

[Flying Pig]

I would be for it.  I know of people who have been arrested for felonies and gone off to court an been convicted and nobody ever knew.  I went on a call once where a husband was on felony probation for some type of fraud.   Funny thing was, it was while they were married and she still never knew.  He never did jail time so he was able to keep it from her.  What was better was when I ran his name in their living room and dispatch repeated his name and said "3 years felony probation for ....."

So things can happen in peoples lives that are kept secret.  As far as suing?  Thats not going to happen.  There are literally hundreds of organizations that have a felony as a disqualifier.  Its a precedent that has been set by the court  Yo cant have a pilots license or even an EMT license with a felony and thats been tried several times and the court won't even hear the case.  In Ca. there are several misdemeanors that are disqualifiers as well for organizations.  There are MANY sex crimes that are misdemeanor also.  

"People get convicted for eroneous reasons everyday and if they pay their debt they should free to live a normal life and not be judged for the rest of their life for one mistake".  

So now as CAP we are acting as a Court of Appeals?  How are we going to know if someone was wrongly accused?  Do we take their word for it?  Sure, people do pay their debt and move on, however, its not up to us to provide people with the second chance they are looking for.  Not to mentioon that we would lose all credibility with any law enforcement agency we would ever work with.  What about in my case?  As a law enforcement officer per my Dept regulations, I am prohibited from associating with known felons.    So now I have to move squadrons so a convicted felon can have a second chance?  I dont think so.  Im tired of people trying to bend over backwards to help people who have made serious mistakes at the cost of us who have lived making good decisions.  Lets not make CAP a rehab.

[BillB]

By the same token, if arrested for a felony and found not guilty, in Florida the record only shows the felony arrest, years after the event. I know one case where a man was arrested on a felony charge, found not guilty and the police officer was charged with perjury. Yet to this day the arrest record still exists without indicating the not guilty verdict.

[jb512]

Maybe there should be a list of common crimes that are commonly abbreviated. If that's not acceptable, then we can stop using abbreviations altoghether. Either way, someone is gonna say "whatever....".

You're trying to make captalk NIMS compliant?   

[arajca]

On a state level (at least in some states) your record can be flagged, as with CO EMT's, so any future felony convictions results in automatic notification to the appropriate agency. I don't know if something like this exists on the federal level.

[Flying Pig]

By the same token, if arrested for a felony and found not guilty, in Florida the record only shows the felony arrest, years after the event. I know one case where a man was arrested on a felony charge, found not guilty and the police officer was charged with perjury. Yet to this day the arrest record still exists without indicating the not guilty verdict.

Ive heard of that also.   In Ca. your CII (Central Index Involvement) will always show you were arrested, because you were.  You cant get that off.  But no conviction will show.  But Im sure most cases you would be required to explain the circumstances and show documentation. 


There have also been cases where people have been listed as "Suspects" in cases, where there may have not been anything to substantiate them being listed as a suspect.  One of our Internal Affairs Sgts wrote a report for a guy once who was listed as a suspect by mistake, basically citing that someone checked the wrong box.  Its like your credit score.....good luck getting it fixed.  But at any rate, thats where a good explanation and documentation from the court should be able to clear up any concerns.

[jb512]

I can only speak for Texas, but I know that a simple TCIC/NCIC check (not important to know what it stands for) just from a name and date of birth, or social, will show every crime that the person has been charged with (above class C misdemeanors).  It will also show if the person was convicted and what the penalty was.

[mikeylikey]

By the same token, if arrested for a felony and found not guilty, in Florida the record only shows the felony arrest, years after the event. I know one case where a man was arrested on a felony charge, found not guilty and the police officer was charged with perjury. Yet to this day the arrest record still exists without indicating the not guilty verdict.

You can see how quickly a person can be charged with crimes, and have that charge follow them for the rest of their life.  It takes thousands of dollars and years to get an expungement in most states.  The state that brought charges and so quickly pronounced guilt should take 10 minutes and clear a persons name when found not guilty or when charges are dropped because it is discovered the police were corrupt, or the person bringing charges was a liar. 

I don't trust our justice system in the very least.  However, it is the only one that gives an appearance of fair and just.  Look, if you are rich, famous.....you spend 82 minutes in jail, for a crime that a normal person would spend years!  When we "kill all the lawyers" we should also kill all the celebrities while we are at it.  In fact, California is SO not like the rest of this country.  I think they will "split" within 30 years from the rest of us.

[Skyray]

As a law enforcement officer per my Dept regulations, I am prohibited from associating with known felons.

In contemplation of what Bill Breeze and I said previously, does that include people who were only arrested for a felony, or who have had their civil rights restored after a conviction?

Maybe we should just stop accepting people with two hats--especially if they get confused which one they are wearing.

[Flying Pig]

Only convicted.  If you werent convicted, your not a felon. 

As far as trusting the justicve system, having been a cop 10 years, Id say it works pretty well.  I had an instructor at the academy tell us "Its not the best system in the world, but nobody has thought of a better one."

[jb512]

Only convicted.  If you werent convicted, your not a felon. 

As far as trusting the justicve system, having been a cop 10 years, Id say it works pretty well.  I had an instructor at the academy tell us "Its not the best system in the world, but nobody has thought of a better one."

I also have been doing this 10 years and I'd have to agree.  People who are distrustful, or claim "eroneous convictions" haven't had much actual experience with the system.  99% of cops are honest, 99% of the guys they arrest are guilty, and 9% of them actually get the punishment they deserve. 

Every person who I've seen in a defendant's chair will swear up and down that they're innocent, but I've never seen one who actually was.

[Skyray]

Only convicted.  If you weren't convicted, you're not a felon. 

Which brings me to a question.  This is not a sophistic semantic exercise, either.  Is someone who is convicted of a felony and then pardoned or had his civil rights restored still a felon?  And how about Nixon, who was clearly guilty, but who was pardoned before he could be tried?

As far as trusting the justice system, having been a cop 10 years, Id say it works pretty well.  I had an instructor at the academy tell us "Its not the best system in the world, but nobody has thought of a better one."

I too trust the justice system.  The only time I have seen it fail is when some player gets the idea that he knows the truth and it is so apparent that he is entitled to lie to get the proper result.  Happens a lot more than you realize.  As they used to say in Dallas, "Anybody can convict the guilty; it takes a real/ prosecutor to convict the innocent."

[Cecil DP]

A few years ago,(1999-2000) the NEC was supposed to have enacted a policy which called for requiring a new Fingerprint check every 5 years. I don't know why this hasn't be accomplished yet,
In cases where there is a hit on a fingerprint check, National contacts the member, NOT THE UNIT, for an explanation. If they don't respond, they are denied membership. If it didn't involve moral turpitude or violence they may be allowed to join upon Nationals review of the facts as presented by the individual. If it was something miner(Joyriding, marijuana, or just teenage stupidity) they may be waived.

[Major Lord]

Using the NCIC system to run backgrounds on members would make the person running the background a felon... not a prudent idea! Other than NCIC, there is no complete central database to use for background checks that would show arrests AND convictions (Okay, I know EPIC, etc, but we won't talk about that here) As a private corporation, we can't conduct background checks any deeper that any other private company. Convictions are available for every municipality, they are public records,  but you have to know every county the person may have committed a crime in....and there are lots of them!

The ideal data base for us I think would be the "Instant Firearms Background". It will tell you if a person has been DQ'd from owning a firearm, (without telling you why) and that would be a pretty [darn] good reason to exclude a person from CAP. These include felons, drug addicts, certifiably insane, communists ( well, maybe we can't keep the commies out of CAP) illegal aliens, etc. It won't show Bankrupticies , liens and Judgements, which are also very good things to know before letting someone have access to our little badgers and Sq bank accounts. It would pretty much take an act of Congress to let us use that data for our purposes.

Major Lord

[DHollywood]

Only convicted.  If you weren't convicted, you're not a felon. 

Which brings me to a question.  This is not a sophistic semantic exercise, either.  Is someone who is convicted of a felony and then pardoned or had his civil rights restored still a felon?  And how about Nixon, who was clearly guilty, but who was pardoned before he could be tried?

As far as trusting the justice system, having been a cop 10 years, Id say it works pretty well.  I had an instructor at the academy tell us "Its not the best system in the world, but nobody has thought of a better one."

I too trust the justice system.  The only time I have seen it fail is when some player gets the idea that he knows the truth and it is so apparent that he is entitled to lie to get the proper result.  Happens a lot more than you realize.  As they used to say in Dallas, "Anybody can convict the guilty; it takes a real/ prosecutor to convict the innocent."

A full pardon, in most states, means that the conviction never happened.  Often the official court records are purged or sealed.  Other states however, while granting the legal effect of the conviction never having been, retain the records and the existance of the charges.

The two defining questions in practice are:

1) Have you ever been convicted of any felony?  or

2) Have you ever been charged with a felony, regardless of disposition?

The former question is likely to be seen on a typical job application and can lawfully be answered "NO" by one who recieves a full pardon in most states.  That person can in fact even gain a concealed carry permit for a handgun.

The latter question is most likely to be seen on a law enforcement application, State Bar Association application, etc, where the law allows them to consider all past conduct regardless of disposition.  One who recieves a pardon must still disclose the facts of the pardoned charges to such an entity or risk perjury, discharge, etc.

I know of more than a couple very productive and dedicated members of CAP who have recieved such pardons.  They have truly paid their debt and continue to do so as productive members of society.

I know of one attorney in California who was convicted of a felony.  He is a top district attorney and prosecutes criminals with skill and passion. 

I would consider a pardon the benchmark of true societal forgiveness and redemption.  That person having recieved the pardon is no longer a felon under any form of lawful disability and should be considered as among his peers to be the same.

IMHAO

[RiverAux]

To some extent we are operating in a little bit of an information blackhole about this issue.  Does anyone know exactly (based on a publically-available document) how CAP conducts its background checks?  Are the details laid out anywhere?  I know they aren't for CD, but what about the general membership check?

[Skyray]

To some extent we are operating in a little bit of an information blackhole about this issue.  Does anyone know exactly (based on a publically-available document) how CAP conducts its background checks?  Are the details laid out anywhere?  I know they aren't for CD, but what about the general membership check?

While I agree that accessing NCIC records for private purposes is a felony, I was under the impression that the FBI (or other suitable agency) would do it for a legitimate organization with a permission slip, and that was what CAP used with the fingerprint cards.  Don't I recall signing a permisson slip when I gave them my fingerprints?

[Hawk200]

To some extent we are operating in a little bit of an information blackhole about this issue.  Does anyone know exactly (based on a publically-available document) how CAP conducts its background checks?  Are the details laid out anywhere?  I know they aren't for CD, but what about the general membership check?

The prints are sent to the FBI. The FBI reports on anything they have. It's up to CAP and the Air Force as to what they want to allow. CAP doesn't actually conduct it's own investigations, they just get results back from the FBI.

[RiverAux]

And your information is based on what?  It squares with what I've "heard" but I'd like to be able to confirm that this is how they do it. 

[Hawk200]

And your information is based on what?  It squares with what I've "heard" but I'd like to be able to confirm that this is how they do it. 

As to where I "heard" it, I got that from National Personnel, ended up talking to Susie. Had an individual that wanted to know specifically how investigations were conducted. I called National, asked, and then provided their number to the person.

I don't think he liked what he heard, as he never showed up again. Which I'm kind of glad of. There were a few alarm bells, and I really didn't want to have to go through any hassles. The guy wierded me out, and I'm glad I could send him to someone else.

Besides, do you know how much it would cost to actually conduct a background check? Second, there's no one in CAP with the authority to request some records. Third, it's a standard fingerprint card you fill out. This is a case of the simplest explanation.