my bogus grounding by FBI check

[jsoceanlord]

Que pasa from san juan?

Five years ago I was convicted of possession of stolen property (worth $250).

This morning San juan security impounded my i.d. and I'm grounded until I get the police report forwarded from California.

The FBI report didn't mention if my crime was a misdemeanor or felony. It seems harsh to me to ground someone for possessing a $250 stolen property five years ago.

Does it matter if my conviction was a misdemeanor and not a felony ?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Andy Neill]

According to the list of disqualifying crimes I have seen it does. Felony possession of stolen property is disqualifying.

 

[jsoceanlord]

I saw the list too and possession of stolen property was on it.

My conviction was for a misdemeanor ($250 value), but the FBI report that SJU security got doesn't specify misdemeanor or felony, so they don't know if I had a stolen Porsche or a pair of tennis shoes. Meanwhile, I'm guilty until proven innocent (of a felony).

Thanks

 

[reaperman]

I'm not meaning to sound too unsympathetic, but blaming the FBI for your grounding is a non-starter; and you're not being treated as guilty until proven inocent. It's just one of the consequences you failed to forsee five years ago. It happens to all of us.

 

[MetroSheriff]

JSOceanlord,

You should be thankful that "tact police" didn't ever come after you for shamelessly hawking that book of your's on all the web boards.

 

[dondk]

It depends on the State Statute... If it is a felony then you career is over for another 5 years (121).

If it was your FIRST offense, it may have been pleaded down to a misdemeanor, if it was a lower class felony.

You would know the answer to this better than anyone.

The only thing I do not like about this is that our companies now can penalize us if we forgot to add something when we were hired. Something 5 years ago that was never on the orginal list can now be held against us.

I looked at that list too.. I do not personally agree with most of "new" additions.

 

[FlyinBrian]

How did you come to posess stolen property? Did you buy a car stereo off of a thief? or did you actually steal something? I can't believe I'm the first one to ask this question. FAR's even say somthing about moral character for ATP's... Not knowing the circumstances, I'm not going to pass judgement, but it couls be that SJU is totally correct in this matter...

 

[jsoceanlord]

thanks for the statute info - mine was a first offense.

(Airport security doesn't take into consideration that I've taken cash receipts for years from passengers and not taken a dime).

There were extenuating circumstances. Five years ago I was living on a boat in a shady waterfront scene in Sausalito, Calif. Two deputies asked to come on board my boat, and, stupidly, I agreed.

I've been flamed more than enough for hawking my non profit book ten months ago. My outstation where I sit for ten hours a day is a five square mile half deserted island. I've got nothing to do but write; either in my book or on the internet. Art is art.

 

[dondk]

I needed to fall asleep last night, so I read the entire document regarding the new changes that caught JSOCEANLORD.

JS... according to the document, a police report will not suffice. It has to be a certified copy from the clerk of the court in which you were convicted. You also have (according to the document) to notify the Airport Authority in writing that you intend to challenge the FBI CHRC and must do so within 30 days. Lastly, the FAA rules also allow you to have a copy of the FBI CHRC.
If you do not provide the documentation showing a dispostion of something other than a felony and you do not initiate the challenge within 30 days the revokation (sp?) of your unescorted security clearance stands.


The only other sugesstions is to notify your MEC, contract administrator and ALPA of your situation. I am not sure why ALPA is stating this as I do not think they can help you, but I guess it is to find out the impact it will present to the pilot work force.

Regardless, I hope all works out for you and you will be back flying in a short period of time.

BTW the document is a strange read... it seems all of this was already on the books, it just needed an event to make it happen. Also, it is open ended, hence they can add to it at will... This will be very interesting over then next year or so until everyone get's through the system.

 

[Tim47SIP]

Anyone know if you can download this document from the FAA or somewhere else and what is the name of it? Thanks.

 

[dondk]

If you are an ALPA member you can get it from thier website...

this is the abridged version:
the link is on this notice

URGENT: Airport and Airline Operators to Begin
Fingerprinting and Criminal Background Checks of All
Employees with Access to Security Areas.

Pursuant to the Aviation Transportation Security Act
that was passed in the wake of the September 11
terrorist attacks, the FAA recently issued an
emergency final rule that orders airline and airport
operators to check the criminal backgrounds of all
employees who have unescorted access to secure areas
of the airport -- i.e., wherever ID badges are
required.

Although ALPA lobbied strongly that the checks should
apply only to the newly federalized screeners and to
new airline job applicants, the FAA has extended the
requirement to include criminal background checks for
all existing employees who have access to secure
areas.

Specifically, you will be required to fill out a form
attesting that you have not been convicted of any of a
lengthy list of criminal acts in the past 10 years.
You will then be fingerprinted, and the prints will be
sent to the FBI to be checked against their records.
Any criminal convictions (or lack thereof) on your
record will be supplied to the employer to verify your
responses.

If you have committed any of the covered criminal acts
(listed below in a summary Q&A provided by FAA) in the
past 10 years, you will be disqualified from having
unescorted access to secure areas of the airport. In
other words, you will no longer be able to perform
flying duties.

ALPA still is objecting strongly to the requirement,
through comments to the FAA docket. We also have
questions about details of the rule and its effects
that need to be clarified. However, some airlines
already have distributed these forms, and others will
follow suit in the near future. ALPA strongly advises
the following:

1. Read the attached summary written by the FAA and
then link to the entire rule which may be accessed at
http://152.119.239.10/docimages/pdf74/144691_web.pdf

(You will need Adobe Acrobat or another .pdf reader.)

2. Answer all questions truthfully. You may be
subject to severe federal penalties for falsification.

3. If you believe that you may have to give a
positive response to any of the disqualifying criminal
acts, contact your contract administrator before
completing and submitting the form.

Obviously, this new requirement raises a number of
labor relations questions as well as regulatory
issues. ALPA will work vigorously to determine
whatever options and alternatives may be available for
pilots who lose their security access privileges.
Until ALPA is able to explore such options, the rule
is clear and there are no alternatives. All members
are urged to follow the above three guidelines and
comply with the regulations.


FAA's Summary of Criminal History Records Checks Rules

Under prior FAA rules background checks were conducted
on applicants for employment as screeners and in
positions with access to secured areas of the airport,
including pilots and ramp workers. In specified
circumstances, an employer must also obtain an
applicant's fingerprint so that the FBI may conduct a
criminal history record check. No individual with
access to secured areas had a background check before
1996, and no screener had a background check before
1998. Only limited numbers of individuals hired since
1996 and 1998 respectively have been subjected (to)
criminal history checks.

The new rules require that all individuals with access
to secured areas and all screeners be fingerprinted
and a criminal history check conducted if it has not
been done in the past.

Q: Who is covered?

A: The rule covers two sets of employees:

Individuals with access to the secured areas and
individuals who may grant unescorted access to others.

Screeners, and supervisors of screeners.

Q: What crimes are disqualifying?

A: A criminal offense is disqualifying if it meets
several conditions:

The individual must have been either convicted or
found not guilty by reason of insanity;

The crime must be listed in the rule; and

The conviction or finding must have occurred either
during the 10 years before the date of the records
check or while the individual has unescorted access
authority.

Q: What are the consequences of a disqualifying
crime?

A: The individual may not be granted, or may not
retain, unescorted access to a secured area, and may
not serve as a screener or a screening supervisor. In
practice, such individuals generally will either not
be hired or will be
discharged.

Q: What due process is given to the employee?

A: If the criminal record contains inaccurate
information the individual may correct the record by
contacting the local jurisdiction and the FBI. Thus
if the record inaccurately states that the individual
was convicted, or fails to indicate that the
individual's conviction later was reversed, the
individual may have the record corrected.

Q: What is the timeline for the rule?

A: The rule applies 100% fingerprinting as follows:

All applicants will (be subject to fingerprinting)
beginning on the date of publication of the rule.
Note that all applicants at Category X airports have
been fingerprinted since December 23, 2000.

All current employees at all covered airports would be
fingerprinted within one year after the publication.

Q: How many people will be fingerprinted under this
rule?

A: About 3/4 to 1 million current employees will be
fingerprinted.

FAA expects that some of these employees have
disqualifying offenses and may not keep their current
authority.

Q: Why is there a need to fingerprint air carrier
pilots?

A: While the background of pilots is extensively
examined by air carriers, without this rule air
carriers do not have access to the fingerprint-based
criminal history records maintained by the FBI. This
rule provides additional information on the pilots
that the air carriers cannot otherwise obtain.

Disqualifying criminal offenses. An individual has a
disqualifying criminal offense if the individual has
been convicted, or found not guilty of by reason of
insanity, of any of the disqualifying criminal offense
listed in this paragraph in any jurisdiction during
the 10 years before the date of the individual's
application for unescorted access, or while the
individual has unescorted access. The disqualifying
criminal offenses are as follows-

(1) Forgery of certificates, false marking of
aircraft, and other aircraft registration violation;
49 U.S.C. 46306.
(2) Interference with air navigation; 49 U.S.C.
46308.
(3) Improper transportation of a hazardous material;
49 U.S.C. 46312.
(4) Aircraft piracy; 49 U.S.C. 46502.
(5) Interference with flightcrew members or flight
attendants; 49 U.S.C. 46504.
(6) Commission of certain crimes aboard aircraft in
flight; 49 U.S.C. 46506.
(7) Carrying a weapon or explosive aboard aircraft;
49 U.S.C. 46505.
(8) Conveying false information and threats; 49
U.S.C. 46507.
(9) Aircraft piracy outside the special aircraft
jurisdiction of the United States; 49 U.S.C. 46502(b).
(10) Lighting violations involving transporting
controlled substances; 49 U.S.C. 46315.
(11) Unlawful entry into an aircraft or airport area
that serves air carriers or foreign air carriers
contrary to established security requirements; 49
U.S.C. 46314.
(12) Destruction of an aircraft or aircraft facility;
18 U.S.C. 32.
(13) Murder.
(14) Assault with intent to murder.
(15) Espionage.
(16) Sedition.
(17) Kidnapping or hostage taking.
(18) Treason.
(19) Rape or aggravated sexual abuse.
(20) Unlawful possession, use, sale, distribution, or
manufacture of an explosive or weapon.
(21) Extortion.
(22) Armed or felony unarmed robbery.
(23) Distribution of, or intent to distribute, a
controlled substance.
(24) Felony arson.
(25) Felony involving a threat.
(26) Felony involving-
(i) Willful destruction of property;
(ii) Importation or manufacture of a controlled
substance;
(iii) Burglary;
(iv) Theft;
(v) Dishonesty, fraud, or misrepresentation;
(vi) Possession or distribution of stolen property;
(vii) Aggravated assault;
(viii)Bribery; or
(ix) Illegal possession of a controlled substance
punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of more
than 1 year.
(27) Violence at international airports; 18 U.S.C.
37.
(28) Conspiracy or attempt to commit any of the
criminal acts listed in this paragraph.

 

[airhead]

so, like 18 years?

I have a friend who goes crazy filling out forms.
From what you siad here, and what I read in the document it is all based on 10 years.
18 years ago he was dumb, did the court, the deal and even got it removed through the court 10 years after.
when he filled out an app recently, it asked if he had "EVER" been convicted of a crime.
He answers yes.
It seems like he is not getting calls. Is it possible they go farther, or is the YES stopping him because there is nothing there?
I keep saying it is just lots of guys are out of work.
What do you think?
~
<I I>
V

 

[dondk]

That "ever" comment is a tough thing. By law is it NOT suppose to be discriminating, BUT it is. The hard part is the proof of discrimanation. I would not suggest falsifing an applicaition, but I would consider leaving it as vague as possible. Once in an interview I would come clean and discuss the circumstances. Again, it would depend on the charge, circumstance's and the behaviour thereafter. Some (key word) employer's will look at the person and not the crime from many years ago, but it does depend on the crime. I know of several employer's who disqualify on anything above a traffic violation, it is a tough call.

If it was actually removed then I personally would answer no to the conviction, that would be ONLY after I was 100% sure it would not show up on a report of some type. If it was actually dismissed OR sealed you can answer NO to the "ever" question.

Best of luck though, it is a tough position to be in...

 

[airhead]

Yeah, DISMISSED!

Does that mean it is not SUPPOSED to show or WILL NOT show?
AND does it mean legally it is a "NO" answer?
Deal done, but the truth and the TRUTH... there is the fine line...
Lawyers have that all tied up too!
Thanks, I think, for the input. I will pass it on for the next time... (Are you sure?)

 

[Draginass]

Just goes to show that the past does often come back to haunt one. Felony run-ins with the law (err . . . "mistakes" as pop culture terms them) can kill your career and cost you BIG money in future earnings.

There are too many great pilots out there with clean records for companies to have to take questionable people or keep them if they falsified their employment application -- even if they are fine pilots.

Future pilots take note and learn the easy way.