A word of advice...

[Len-2A Training]

Fred, I think you may be mis-reading what the OP was stating. The following comes from a direct discussion with Ron Glidden on Saturday and other info that corresponds with my understanding stated by other LOs and Jason Guida.

The MGL on issuing LTC/FIDs has a look-back period to the date of birth, no exceptions for Juvie or Sealed records. Thus, a system was devised that doesn't breach that "confidentiality" but still accomplishes what is required by MGL C. 140 for licensing. As I understand it from the above sources, when the query is sent in DCJIS "unseals" the record strictly to determine if it is a DQ or not and gives the LO an "OK" or "DQ" response. The LO has no idea precisely what the charge was, only that it was either a Not Guilty or Guilty (and simply whether the Guilty is a DQ or not). If it is a DQ, DCJIS will NOT allow a "proceed" to issue a LTC/FID . . . it's probably blocked in their computer program, but I never asked for that detail as it really is irrelevant.

 

[bill o]

Perhaps if you would try to educate people, and present yourselves as decent, law abiding citizens, rather than anti-police, angry, middle aged punks, then maybe your 2A fight wouldn't be such an uphill battle.

Sorry, this reeks of condescension.

Whether LTCs were issued by police or a civilian agency doesn't matter. There'd still be the same resentment. So I don't know why you're playing the anti-police card.

Who here is not decent and law abiding?

 

[Glasgow Grin]

Your a licensed DCJIS user and you used his juvenile record against him as well????? Have you read the new CORI law???? A word of advise, if he reads this forum and sees you read his juvy record YOU could be in a bit of a jam. IMO .....and yes I am a DCJIS certified user and trainer.

You obviously have a limited access to CORI. I don't know or care what you use CORI information for, but you also do not understand the MIRCS system, or the background process. I also never said that I used his juvenile record against him, and to imply that by reading it I " put myself in a jam" is laughable. Stop the arguing already. You don't know my job.

 

[Glasgow Grin]

Fred, I think you may be mis-reading what the OP was stating. The following comes from a direct discussion with Ron Glidden on Saturday and other info that corresponds with my understanding stated by other LOs and Jason Guida.

The MGL on issuing LTC/FIDs has a look-back period to the date of birth, no exceptions for Juvie or Sealed records. Thus, a system was devised that doesn't breach that "confidentiality" but still accomplishes what is required by MGL C. 140 for licensing. As I understand it from the above sources, when the query is sent in DCJIS "unseals" the record strictly to determine if it is a DQ or not and gives the LO an "OK" or "DQ" response. The LO has no idea precisely what the charge was, only that it was either a Not Guilty or Guilty (and simply whether the Guilty is a DQ or not). If it is a DQ, DCJIS will NOT allow a "proceed" to issue a LTC/FID . . . it's probably blocked in their computer program, but I never asked for that detail as it really is irrelevant.

Lens,
You seem educated, concerned, and well informed. To clarify, most of what you wrote is correct, except that we do see the complete record. This includes all charges, dispositions, probation and fines paid. Generally, law enforcement access to cori is different than that of other agencies. If I run a BOP check on a person, the system does not remove juvenile records. They appear on the screen with everything else, but are listed as juvenile offenses. Hope this clarifies for you.

 

[Glasgow Grin]

To the former; fair point. My comments were misdirected and you have my apologies.

To the later, if civil rights aren't something that require a vigorous and aggressive defense, I don't know what is. How has polite discourse worked so far where 2A rights are concerned?

Thank you. Apology accepted. As for the rest, again, Police are only the messengers. We don't write the laws.

 

[appraiser]

In defense of the good Officer, he should not be put in the position of loosing his job, career, pension, livelihood, etc because someone else is a liar.

If you screwed up, man up, don't compound one screw up with another.

+1 for Officer Glasgow

 

[BradM]

Always glad to see folks on "our" side Glasgow. I know my licensing officer was very helpful and I appreciated that.

 

[not new guy]

Lens,
You seem educated, concerned, and well informed. To clarify, most of what you wrote is correct, except that we do see the complete record. This includes all charges, dispositions, probation and fines paid. Generally, law enforcement access to cori is different than that of other agencies. If I run a BOP check on a person, the system does not remove juvenile records. They appear on the screen with everything else, but are listed as juvenile offenses. Hope this clarifies for you.

I'm not up to speed on the CORI issues, but I think it's important for people to understand that no matter what a judge may have told you decades earlier about you not having a record of any kind, you will always have the record out there somewhere. The fact that you showed up in court as a defendant never gets completely taken off the books, contrary to what you might otherwise like to believe.

The language of the question is clear enough:

10. HAVE YOU EVER APPEARED IN ANY COURT AS A DEFENDANT FOR ANY CRIMINAL OFFENSE

When applying I answered honestly and, sure enough, the one incident a decade and a half earlier that I thought had been scrubbed was right there on the licensing officer's screen. I knew enough to answer honestly, but I can sort of see how someone might try to get cute with the response. It's no justification for lying on the application or perjuring yourself or whatever, but an applicant is already paranoid about being DQed for any reason or no reason at all, and I think many are afraid of the info being used to deny the application, so they rationalize not sharing it on the basis that the record was supposed to have been sealed up or expunged. That doesn't explain the continued or outright lies described in the first post, of course.

 

[not new guy]

Always glad to see folks on "our" side Glasgow. I know my licensing officer was very helpful and I appreciated that.

+1

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

There's considerable controversy surrounding the use of a juvenile adjudication in denying an LTC. Chap 276 sec 100B clearly keeps the police out of sealed juvenile records. However 140/131d very clearly refers to disqualify offense from anytime in the applicant's past. I personally know of two times where a Boston District court has ruled that the BPD erred in denying an LTC based upon a sealed juvenile record and ordered that the license be renewed. I'm also aware of another, more recent, case in another court where the court ruled that Chap 140/131d was controlling. Based upon this more recent decision and that 140/131d was enacted more recently than 276/100B, the state clearly is of the opinion that sealed juvenile records are fair game. (I don't believe that the police actually see the sealed record, I think Probation just tells them if the applicant is disqualified - but I may be wrong).

Note also that regardless of whether or not sealed juvenile records are available to the PD for licensing purposes, the police are absolutely free to use that same information to disqualify someone if it comes from a source other than a sec100b sealed record - i.e. town police records, III, etc.

 

[Glasgow Grin]

Whoa! Let me clarify this. We do not see a "sealed" juvenile record when running a BOP. What we see is a message indicating a sealed record is on file. I Was referring to a normal juvenile record. Some people assume that all juvenile records are sealed by the CORI fairy on their 18th birthday. Not so. It will follow you for life, just like herpes. Hope this clarifies.

 

[Len-2A Training]

GG, clear out your PM folder. Trying to send you something and you are Maxed out (welcome to that club too ).

 

[ericcif]

Wait a minute! I'm not gonna get rid of herpes?

 

[Glasgow Grin]

GG, clear out your PM folder. Trying to send you something and you are Maxed out (welcome to that club too ).

Done. Sorry about that.

 

[Glasgow Grin]

Wait a minute! I'm not gonna get rid of herpes?

Sorry...but umm...no. LOL

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Whoa! Let me clarify this. We do not see a "sealed" juvenile record when running a BOP. What we see is a message indicating a sealed record is on file. I Was referring to a normal juvenile record. Some people assume that all juvenile records are sealed by the CORI fairy on their 18th birthday. Not so. It will follow you for life, just like herpes. Hope this clarifies.

Thanks for confirming. I was under this impression.

 

[M1911]

Glasgow Grin: Thanks for giving us the view from a licensing officer's perspective and providing good advice. I don't understand how someone could either misunderstand that question or forget they appeared as a defendant or think they could get away with a lie -- but clearly some people do.

 

[PaulD]

Does it show civil driving infractions? How about loss of driver's license due to too many speeding tickets?

 

[Roy Rogers]

GG, thank you for being one of the good guys.

 

[Emoto]

Wait a minute! I'm not gonna get rid of herpes?

Well, I think it is best summed up on this site: http://www.hairpieceorherpes.com/

 

[bill o]

Glasgow Grin: Thanks for giving us the view from a licensing officer's perspective and providing good advice. I don't understand how someone could either misunderstand that question or forget they appeared as a defendant or think they could get away with a lie -- but clearly some people do.

I do. Some of my students come from the lowest socioeconomic stratum. They can be functionally illiterate and have little grasp the English language. They typically want to get an LTC for the sole reason to become a security guard. They might be embarrassed or afraid to ask the licensing officer exactly what a question or word means on the application, or have no appreciation of the permanence or completeness of criminal history databases.

I'm not making excuses for anyone's misstatements, but I understand how it could happen in some cases.

 

[ntomsw]

I do. Some of my students come from the lowest socioeconomic stratum. They can be functionally illiterate and have little grasp the English language. They typically want to get an LTC for the sole reason to become a security guard. They might be embarrassed or afraid to ask the licensing officer exactly what a question or word means on the application, or have no appreciation of the permanence or completeness of criminal history databases.

I'm not making excuses for anyone's misstatements, but I understand how it could happen in some cases.

If a person can't speak English, and doesn't understand simple instructions to tell the truth, I feel bad for no one. Give me a break. It's not hard...DON'T LIE

 

[Len-2A Training]

Like M1911, I have a hard time with that too. I know someone who had an LTC for many years. Finally they computerized old records and he finally got caught in a lie. Seems he "forgot" that he had been arrested and spent 2 days in jail awaiting an arraignment on some charges (I'm going to guess it involved drinking). He bitched to me about getting denied. His LO, chief and myself all had a hard time believing that he hadn't "remembered" the incident. He bragged that he had hired a retired judge to get his LTC back and fight the chief. My understanding is that the chief prevailed and made the guy cool his heels for 2 or 3 years before he was given his LTC back (new application).

Bill, no offense but if they have such low functional literacy, I'm sure they won't do well following orders, enforcing rules/laws in a security position either. Yes, I've run into those types and it is an embarrassment to anyone in the field of security.

 

[ntomsw]

Bill, no offense but if they have such low functional literacy, I'm sure they won't do well following orders, enforcing rules/laws in a security position either. Yes, I've run into those types and it is an embarrassment to anyone in the field of security.

I agree on this point.

 

[bill o]

I agree on this point.

No argument here.

 

[Glasgow Grin]

They can be functionally illiterate and have little grasp the English language.

The irony is killing me here, but I can assure you that this man was literate. He was simply full of s@$! There really aren't any excuses. He simply lied. However, if I ever had an applicant who could not speak or understand English, I would certainly do everything in my power to put them in touch with an interpreter.

 

[Glasgow Grin]

Does it show civil driving infractions? How about loss of driver's license due to too many speeding tickets?

Yes. We can see all of that, but it's a different screen. I don't see how a driving record could be used to DQ an LTC applicant. Am I missing something?

 

[bill o]

The irony is killing me here, but I can assure you that this man was literate. He was simply full of s@$! There really aren't any excuses. He simply lied. However, if I ever had an applicant who could not speak or understand English, I would certainly do everything in my power to put them in touch with an interpreter.

What is ironic?

 

[Glasgow Grin]

What is ironic?

Could someone help me out here?

 

[bill o]

Could someone help me out here?

I'll help... what was the unexpected outcome, or "irony?"