Is My Worry Justified?

[tk85]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? New York (specifically, New York City)

A few weeks ago, I attended a friend's party. Three of us left to go sleep at a destination exactly a block away from where we were. We were being excessively noisy and bullying each other, as we unfortunately always do, on the way. In the middle of the block we were walking down, we were stopped by two officers. They wrote up summons for disorderly conduct for each of us. They also simultaneously told us that we simply had to show up in court and that the cases would be dropped.

I just got employed and was wondering if such a thing would show up during a background check (have never had trouble with the law before)..? Also, seeing as that the court date is scheduled for mid-December, do I have the option of going early, possibly before the background check, as to avoid any nuisances?

Thank you very much for your help.What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[dave33]

First of all you should not take legal advice from a police officer.You will have to show up on the date on the ticket. The only way to know for sure what will come up when you do a backround check is to do one yourself.Perhaps, by retaining a private attorney he could assist you in these matters.Although,to me, that would seem like a big expense for such a thing. On the other hand I would always advise anyone charged with a crime to get a lawyer. A consultation couldn't hurt.goodluck.

 

[tk85]

Thank you for your response. However, I have a hard time equating a lot of raucous laughing and joking with "crime" ... ?

 

[tk85]

And yes, I guess a consultation would be a good idea.

 

[CdwJava]

The officer likely has a better feel for what the court does in these matters, so it may well be a common practice for the court to resolve these issues as resolved. While it would not hurt to consult an attorney, it is very possible that the officer was correct.

One should no more accept the "legal advice" of an officer than they would the "legal advice" of an anonymous poster on a web site. It is always best to consult a local attorney before taking any action.

 

[tk85]

Thank you!

In anycase, considering that in the NY Penal Code, disorderly conduct is considered a violation, I shouldn't be too worried about it affecting employment, right?

Guess it all depends on the employer.. hmmm.. very, very annoying for such inoffensive behavior.

 

[dave33]

Yes, absolutely annoying. As it seems you already looked it up section 240.20,You can see A. A person is guilty of d.c when intent to cause public inconvenience,annoyance or alarm.1.Violence.2. Unreasonable noise.3. In public place using abusive or obscene language.Than a couple more.7.He creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legit. purpose.Of course that is the short version. Of course just an opinion of an anonymous poster, but from your thread and the way the law reads, I would be very skeptical to accept what the officer said at face value.It also does say it is a violation. I would say it depends what kind of backround check is conducted and what the employer will accept as o.k.Sorry, basically no information at all.Anyway goodluck.

 

[tk85]

Did a bit more reading because I am quiet naive when it comes to American law and I found out that a violation is non-criminal. Thus it should not necessarily be part of a criminal background check.

That would be nice.

 

[HighwayMan]

Did a bit more reading because I am quiet naive when it comes to American law and I found out that a violation is non-criminal. Thus it should not necessarily be part of a criminal background check.

That would be nice.

How do you figure it's non-criminal? It falls under the Penal Law and is a violation. A conviction will show up on a criminal history.

You received a criminal summons. Most employment applications will ask "have you ever been summonsed or arrested?" Regardless of the outcome of the case you will have to answer "yes".

What borough did this occur in?

 

[dave33]

Well, just out of curiousity I checked into it a little bit more. Unbelievably op is right. He was charged with 240.20 d.c. which in N.Y. is a violation and not considered a crime. What the cop meant was the judge will sentence you to (acd) adjournment in contemplation. Which will result in a dismissal in 6 months to 1 year. Although that is not a mandatory sentence and I expect if you get in any more trouble it will be revoked. Also at the end of your acd the record will be sealed. I would say you can count on a fine and maybe some other sanctions. If the cop charged you with 240.21, that would be aggravated d.c. a class a misdemeanor. But, I expect it will still show up on a complete backround search. Even when sealed I would expect it will still show up as "sealed" until you take further action to have it removed. Seems like you got lucky this time. I am not sure, but personally I would not consider this an arrest. Just an anonymous opinion.

 

[You Are Guilty]

How do you figure it's non-criminal? It falls under the Penal Law and is a violation. A conviction will show up on a criminal history.

You received a criminal summons. Most employment applications will ask "have you ever been summonsed or arrested?" Regardless of the outcome of the case you will have to answer "yes".

That's actually not true. Plain vanilla DC is a violation and a violation, by definition, is not a "crime" in NY. And under Exec Law 296 (16? 17? going by memory here), employers asking about arrests for criminal cases not then pending is the only thing that is actually illegal in NY just to ask. (Everything else, while stupid to ask about, is not illegal per se).

However, if the OP is not offered an ACD, I'd eat my shorts.

 

[HighwayMan]

If the cop charged you with 240.21, that would be aggravated d.c. a class a misdemeanor.

Dave, please stick to what you know.

There is no such charge as aggravated disorderly conduct! This does not exist in New York State.

Penal Law 240.21 is "Disruption or disturbance of a religious service, funeral,
burial or memorial service"

 

[HighwayMan]

That's actually not true. Plain vanilla DC is a violation and a violation, by definition, is not a "crime" in NY. And under Exec Law 296 (16? 17? going by memory here), employers asking about arrests for criminal cases not then pending is the only thing that is actually illegal in NY just to ask. (Everything else, while stupid to ask about, is not illegal per se).

However, if the OP is not offered an ACD, I'd eat my shorts.

296 (16):

16. It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice, unless
specifically required or permitted by statute, for any person, agency,
bureau, corporation or association, including the state and any
political subdivision thereof, to make any inquiry about, whether in any
form of application or otherwise, or to act upon adversely to the
individual involved, any arrest or criminal accusation of such
individual not then pending against that individual which was followed
by a termination of that criminal action or proceeding in favor of such
individual

I have been asked that on applications numerous times, as I recall for financial sector jobs and law enforcement. It depends what type of job one is seeking.

Also, an ACD is NOT automatic. It depends on the judge and the borough. Some courts seem tougher than others. I have seen many judges in Summons Appearance Parts take a hard line.

And a conviction, even for a violation, does appear in a criminal history.

 

[You Are Guilty]

296 (16):

16. It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice, unless
specifically required or permitted by statute, for any person, agency,
bureau, corporation or association, including the state and any
political subdivision thereof, to make any inquiry about, whether in any
form of application or otherwise, or to act upon adversely to the
individual involved, any arrest or criminal accusation of such
individual not then pending against that individual which was followed
by a termination of that criminal action or proceeding in favor of such
individual

I have been asked that on applications numerous times, as I recall for financial sector jobs and law enforcement. It depends what type of job one is seeking.

True, it can be asked in certain jobs (police/fire are two well known exceptions), however, there is no other question which is ever outright illegal to ask. So "are you pregnant", "do you have herpes", "what nationality are you", "you look really old, when were you born", etc., are all permissible. "Have you ever been arrested" however, is generally not. Go figure.

Also, an ACD is NOT automatic. It depends on the judge and the borough. Some courts seem tougher than others. I have seen many judges in Summons Appearance Parts take a hard line.

Of course anything is possible, but for a first offense with the OP's explanation on a DC charge? Unless he goes in there all thugged out with an attitude, an ACD is not a big stretch to imagine.

And a conviction, even for a violation, does appear in a criminal history.

I suppose it depends on the who's doing the search (feds?), but OCA has claimed for a while now that a CHRS won't contain violations:

Why does OCA not provide information on violations and infractions?
As a result of a recent case filed in a New York court, the Unified Court System has reviewed its policy regarding the contents of criminal history summaries that it provides to individuals and businesses upon their request and for a fee. The review has resulted in a change of policy to the extent that the summaries provided will report only convictions on charges that New York State law regards as crimes. Crimes are defined by New York State law as including misdemeanors and felonies only. Convictions on offenses classified as violations and infractions which are not "crimes" as defined by New York State law will no longer be reported unless the criminal history summary includes a misdemeanor or felony conviction for the same event.

http://www.nycourts.gov/apps/chrs/faqs.shtml

Never having ordered one, I don't know if they're telling they truth, but I'll take them at their word (for now).

 

[dave33]

Highwayman, Yup, you are right and I feel stupid. Next time I will not "skim read" what I am looking up. It does say "aggravated disorderly conduct is a class a misdemeanor".