All the docs disappearing will not help the guy in MA. Given no court proof of his claim, the RMV and likely his PD will stand by their decisions that it is a conviction, and he won't be able to prove otherwise! Not good!
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Out of state DUI Dismissal / MA RMV Considering it Conviction
- Thread starter Mosin54
- Start date
Do they really delete the ruling that results in deleting the other records? That's a bit of a stretch in my mind. I've got a ruling that states all records to be destroyed at any dept./agency and yet they are still there. But I can say they don't exist without committing perjury. Legal games, aren't they fun.
And wouldn't his lawyer have a copy of the ruling even if the court did delete it.
If it's anything like an expungement, they didn't really disappear. They are sealed but can usually be retrieved by petitioning the court with proper reasoning.
The fact that they leave breadcrumbs laying about illustrates the problem of the criminal records system, particularly for an expungement. Further, it illustrates how such breadcrumbs can be used against you where you have to prove your innocence for something that 'fictionally' didn't occur or doesn't even exist anymore. And, even worse, if you go and retrieve the expunged records (which are purposefully hidden from the public), you are essentially undoing the benefit of the court adjudication since now you're forced to bring it back into public view by way of giving it back to the state ... which will probably ensure that it is stored in their LE database somewhere. If you have to go to court with such records, even worse, public record once again.
Adjudicating someone as being convicted by way of breadcrumbs is a travesty.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,529
- Likes
- 33,560
They are not adjudicating it as a conviction but a conviction equivalent for insurance profit enhancement and predicate sentencing purposes.
AHM
NES Member
Stop me if I'm wrong, but three dozen posts in this thread,
and I don't think anyone has wigged to the fact that
the original post doesn't even say that any Mass Licensing Officer
has made the slightest noise that OP's buddy is even unsuitable,
let alone a Prohibited Person.
The immediate problem to be solved
is getting his Mass Drivers License reinstated.
The hypothetical question about what to do
if the COP questions his suitability some years from now
is a distant second place in OP's stated concerns.
Of course, if the complementary question about his buddy's LTC
in Northeast Drinkers is as replete with RMV advice,
then he'll be all set...
and I don't think anyone has wigged to the fact that
the original post doesn't even say that any Mass Licensing Officer
has made the slightest noise that OP's buddy is even unsuitable,
let alone a Prohibited Person.
The immediate problem to be solved
is getting his Mass Drivers License reinstated.
The hypothetical question about what to do
if the COP questions his suitability some years from now
is a distant second place in OP's stated concerns.
Of course, if the complementary question about his buddy's LTC
in Northeast Drinkers is as replete with RMV advice,
then he'll be all set...
Last edited:
dcmdon
NES Member
I agree. But my point was that showing MA the CT statute requiring destruction of all court docs will at least show Mass WHY he can't produce any documentation.
Don
Do you really think that they will care?
dcmdon
NES Member
The same MA that is in the title to this thread.
dcmdon
NES Member
There is no court record.
(c) (1) Whenever any charge in a criminal case has been nolled in the Superior Court, or in the Court of Common Pleas, if at least thirteen months have elapsed since such nolle, all police and court records and records of the state's or prosecuting attorney or the prosecuting grand juror pertaining to such charge shall be erased, except that in cases of nolles entered in the Superior Court, Court of Common Pleas, Circuit Court, municipal court or by a justice of the peace prior to April 1, 1972, such records shall be deemed erased by operation of law and the clerk or the person charged with the retention and control of such records shall not disclose to anyone their existence or any information pertaining to any charge so erased, provided nothing in this subsection shall prohibit the arrested person or any one of his heirs from filing a petition to the court or to the records center of the Judicial Department, as the case may be, to have such records erased, in which case such records shall be erased.
Why doesn't he just ask his chief? Either call, or call and make an appointment.
... except for the one on the driver's license, and now bringing it to the court.
More specifically, what town is this?
Last edited:
Well the defendant was certainly given a copy of the ruling and his lawyer has a copy, so it's total BS that no record exists. All he had to do was provide a copy of the ruling. There was an easy way out on this and he chose not to take it, his choice, he gets to face the consequences, but he doesn't want to, so he whines about "there are no records" when in fact there are at least 2 sources of a record of the ruling. Kind of like he chose to drink and drive but didn't want to be held accountable for that either.
So now he can hire another lawyer, who will probably advise him to just produce a copy of the ruling and the lawyer will provide it to the DMV and clear this all up. Or he can make some kind of BS court challenge, costing him tens of thousands, which will probably end with a judge saying produce the ruling and this all goes away.
Mr OUI is creating his own problems on many levels. My guess is this wasn't the first time he drank and drove and won't be his last. Then he'll whine about having his LTC yanked for a "first time" MA OUI...... because there is no CT record
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
dcmdon
NES Member
The OP already said the defendant didn't have a copy of anything. I"m not doubting that he wasn't given anything. Just that at the time he failed to grasp the importance of this paperwork.
That leaves his attorney. The OP didn't mention if he represented himself, had a public defender, or had his own atty.
If he hired an atty, then looking there for some records is certainly a valid idea.
But absent success with the attorney, it's not BS at all that no record exists.
That leaves his attorney. The OP didn't mention if he represented himself, had a public defender, or had his own atty.
If he hired an atty, then looking there for some records is certainly a valid idea.
But absent success with the attorney, it's not BS at all that no record exists.
This seems to be the case, he was unaware at the time of dismissal that MA would be MA, and demand paperwork that is not supposed to exist. The RMV does not care about any statute about why it's not available, they just want it. They get to make the rules, unfortunately. He had his own CT lawyer and has been trying that avenue to obtain paperwork, but it seems like he didn't retain any copies either. The atty wasn't even in the room upon dismissal because the defendant fulfilled his requirements to get it dismissed and it took less than 5 minutes in court. He has since had his drivers license reinstated in MA with this "Conviction" from the RMV, now the question still remains on how to obtain paperwork for his LTC renewal and/or a visit from the local PD for suitability.
@42! - I appreciate your help and advice in this, but your last comment #45 is way off. You've been here long enough to know that you shouldn't assume. There was no easy way to deal with this - "All he had to do was provide a copy of the ruling. There was an easy way out on this and he chose not to take it"
Easy and Massachusetts don't belong in the same sentence...
Not an attorney and am not familiar with CT but have some experience with other states and how they handle expungements. Understanding this may be quite different.
For other states, the local courts do tend to retain records even after expungement (this does not require a conviction). After expungement, records are impounded with an order for the other state agencies to delete evidence that the case had ever existed (which may require some legwork) ... it's 'deemed erased'. This may include things such as arrest / charging information, fingerprint blotters, photos, notes, etc.
Re-offenders of the same offense(s), sometime later, may see such past problems re-appear in state courts in some circumstances. But the LE will no longer 'know' about it until such time (exceptions are the hints from the breadcrumbs).
The clerk may deny that such records exist if asked (deemed erased). To get to the records would require a judge to sign off on a request. LE can petition the courts for responsive records in some limited circumstances. E.g. background for security clearances.
The problem with expungements is that the individual may have a court order for the other agencies to erase related records they retain ... but it's not necessarily automatic ... state-dependent. An individual has to petition each of the state agencies with the court order to have them remove the information and along with the other breadcrumbs (potentially).
Personally, with a limited understanding of CT, I'd look into pursuing a request to the courts for access to the records. And, if not already done, petition the state criminal justice department, sheriffs department, county and local police departments, etc with a copy of the court order to ensure that they delete any associated records. The later may be enough to remove the breadcrumbs, idk. But, of course, you need a copy of the court order.
This could be an avenue to look into.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,529
- Likes
- 33,560
This reminds me of a similar problem an LTC applicant had. One standard disposition in Ohio is "bail forfeiture'. The defendant agrees to the state keeping the bail, the charges are dropped, the state clears a profit and the expense of a trial is saved for both sides.
But, in MA, a licensing authority is very likely (and on at least one occasion) to confuse "bail forfeiture" with "bail jumping"
But, in MA, a licensing authority is very likely (and on at least one occasion) to confuse "bail forfeiture" with "bail jumping"
The court would certainly have provided a copy to the attorney of record. And if they didn't, any competent attorney would have gone to the court to get it. And any competent lawyer would retain that copy. So assuming there isn't something you left out, this is a pretty clear case of professional malpractice. My sister, a lawyer specializing in malpractice defence, always said there is no such thing as a small malpractice suit. You buddy is lucky, this could take care of him for the rest of his life and easily bankroll what he will need to do to undo all the mistakes that put him in this position.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,529
- Likes
- 33,560
When involved in any case, get a COURT CERTIFIED copy of the resolution. The reaction to non-certified copies can be "so what?, I have a laser printer at my house too".
There had to be some paperwork somewhere for MA RMV to get that info.
Knowing how my MA PD works, no way do I believe that the "in-house" computer system for the PD who prosecuted has wiped out any evidence of the case.
Most if not all MA PDs will run you thru LEAPS (MA MV records) when you apply for a LTC/renewal. The RMV info will be a red flag to the PD and they will definitely want to know more with official paperwork.
In MA, the only bail forfeiture that is done is when someone fails to appear in court, so that definitely will be a red flag and require explanation.
dcmdon
NES Member
CT will leave a record of the AEP on your driving record. This is not criminal and has nothing to do with the prosecution or court case and doesn't need to be erased.
As I'm sure you know Driving is a privilege, not a right.
This is how they get you with refusing a chemical sobriety test. You refuse the test. the 5a says that it can't be held against you in court. But the CT DMV suspends your license administratively. You haven't been convicted of DUI. But your license is suspended.
dcmdon
NES Member
Please do realize that an acquittal or nolle in CT does not seal records. The courts and PD must literally delete them from their systems.
I know it sounds hard to believe but this is actually done. I have helped a lot of CT people get pistol permits, some of whom have had arrests that never turned up on any background checks.
I know of 2 former CT residents who got MA ltcs after being arrested and haivng charges dropped. Though both told their respective PDs about the arrests, they never turned up on any MA criminal history checks.
I know it sounds hard to believe but this is actually done. I have helped a lot of CT people get pistol permits, some of whom have had arrests that never turned up on any background checks.
I know of 2 former CT residents who got MA ltcs after being arrested and haivng charges dropped. Though both told their respective PDs about the arrests, they never turned up on any MA criminal history checks.
Just a point. An arrest and charges is not a criminal history, it only becomes criminal AFTER a conviction, so it is not uncommon for them to not show when looking at just criminal history. It is also why they have arrest records. And it is not unusual for arrest records to be maintained when criminal records are ordered sealed or otherwise erased.
In MA, maybe others, a juvenile conviction that would have been a disqualifier if you were an adult still disqualifies you for an LTC, so you are correct, not all juvenile records are "sealed" This is what caught up with Lt Wareham at FPD and got his LTC revoked, of course nothing happened to him for lying on the application/renewal for years, but you know, he's one of the special people.
A little OT, our system has a major flaw that is only recently becoming a major issue. There is no 100% forgiveness or forget. If a person makes a single mistake, even it's not their mistake and they get arrested and charged, but the charges are dropped or dismissed. Even if this is a one time thing, and it's been over 20 years, it still comes back to haunt them, often times it's worse than a conviction because there are processes for dealing with a conviction. They assume dismissed means dismissed, but that's not how it's used any more. Your arrest record is used as an "almost" convicted. This situation is a result of the computerization of records. What used to get lost in time is now instantly brought up.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,529
- Likes
- 33,560
A distinction without a difference. There are things you can do without the government using force against you and things you cannot.
Driving on public roads may be a privilege, but access to due process for that privilege is treated like a right. Just imaging the public reaction if the RMV could say "We see a not guilty on your record, but evidence of guilt still exists, so you may not have a driving license".
Actually, its the MA interpretation of the 5A that precludes use of a refusal in court. Many other states allow it, and SCOTUS as not yet prohibited it.
Some states walk a different path and require a warrant for a blood test, but that is just a formality since a judge is available 24x7 and the only evidence needed to get one is "we suspect DUI". In those states, force will be used to extract the sample.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,529
- Likes
- 33,560
Another fun one is old records. There was one case that focused on whether a single cursive letter in the disposition column was a "G" (guilty) or "D" (dismissed).
Last edited:
Similar threads
