Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Legal in another country" background question

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Thanks so far, I'm glad this place hasn't changed. I'm enjoying my retirement from the police field and this question came up among some other retirees, mainly due to the reason BrianT mentioned above.

    Originally posted by Iowa #1603 View Post

    It is GROUNDS for disqualification.

    The activity is illegal in my jurisdiction....it really doesn't matter if it was legal there.The candidate is not applying THERE.

    In reality it will depend on what the activity WAS.and the rules the local agency has set for their hiring standards.

    You must remember that a BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION is all about your candidate's past behavior, and the things they are willing to do. Backgrounding candidates is all about the fact that prior behavior is often indicative of future behavior
    Thanks, that was about my line of thought.

    Originally posted by L-1 View Post
    At risk of getting flamed, I'm going to disagree to a certain extent.

    If you admit to placing illegal bets with your bookie or visiting illegal gambling establishments in your state, you're going to get DQed. But admit to flying to Las Vegas or New Jersey and gambling in a legal casino and instead of DQing you, your BI might ask if you won anything. The true DQ issue is not that you gambled but that you broke the law.

    Similarly, patronize a hooker in your state where doing so is illegal and you're probably going to get DQed. But do so in Nevada where prostitution is legal and licensed by the government as an honorable way or earning a living and the odds of being DQed just dropped to almost zero. As far as foreign/underage is concerned, that is still covered by Federal Sex Tourism prohibitions and is a solid DQ.

    Ditto with certain drugs. With so many drugs now being made legal, many departments have changed their DQ criteria to state no usage of (insert drugs name) within the past 12, 24, 60 (take your pick) months. This addresses addiction and BATF firearms disqualification issues.

    I visit Texas periodically where the maximum speed limit is 85 MPH on certain roads. I have routinely driven at that speed in Texas, which is in full compliance with Texas law, however, the maximum speed limit in my state is 70 MPH. Should that allow me to be disqualified in my state as having demonstrated poor driving habits and a propensity to speed?

    My whole point here is, is it unreasonable to DQ an applicant for engaging in conduct in a foreign jurisdiction declared lawful by their government, solely because it might be unlawful in our jurisdiction. Instead, there needs to be another DQ basis that shows a valid relationship to the job being sought.

    Interesting.
    Last edited by Eternal46; 11-24-2021, 12:24 AM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Bing_Oh View Post

      I don't think it should necessarily be an auto DQ if something is legal where it happened but illegal where the applicant is applying. On the flip side, I also don't think that the "it was legal there" should be an get out of jail free card.

      Realistically, we all know that most auto DQ's carry with them some larger concern. They generally fall into the category of serious crime, moral terpitude, or indication of serious poor decision-making. Speeding and gambling and drinking don't generally fall into those categories. But, I was only being slightly sarcastic when I said that underage prostitution and opium were legal in some third world countries...they actually are and participation in such activities brings into questions a candidate's background, even though the activities may have been technically legal.
      The problem is, DQing on the basis of moral turpitude can be problematic as what is "moral" is hard to legally define and is usually in the eye of the beholder. Before I retired, a large number of our officers worked a 4th of July detail at the beach. I lived where the event took place, was on a day off and went by to take a lot of pictures of my guys who, because it was at the beach, were surrounded by girls in bikinis. A few days later I brought the photos to the station to show others what our officers did at the event. My Captain saw the pictures and directed me put them away and not let anyone else see them as girls in bikinis "were immoral."

      You also run into the unintended consequences of DQing someone for having engaged in immoral conduct when they do something that is legal in another jurisdiction but not legal in you own. Should the DQ go to appeal, the government your agency is a part of is now in the position of having implicitly alleged that by allowing such activity, the foreign government where this took place has deliberately authorized and endorsed immoral conduct. And yes, the media will twist it that way if they get wind of things. The next thing you know, the foreign government will file a formal protest over this insult by your city/county/state with the US State Department and you may have an Ambassador or Consul General at the DQ Hearing, testifying on behalf of the Applicant and objecting to the grievous insult your agency has directed to his country.

      In short, if what someone did in a foreign land was legal there but illegal here, you need to find a specific DQ criteria that will fit, other than morality. There are other ways. To many unanswered questions on the PHS - DQ for lacking thoroughness and accuracy, and inability to follow simple written instructions.

      But at the same time, sit back and think for a minute. We want people who play by the rules. They should expect the same of us. Is it fair to DQ an applicant who played within the rules, but has done that little intangible thing that makes you not like the guy. I'm not talking about an applicant who has all sorts of red flags and warning signs that shout DON'T HIRE THIS IDIOT. I'm talking about the applicant that otherwise looks OK but has some little thing in their background just rubs you the wrong way. If that little thing is not a clear cut DQ within the rules, you shouldn't be manufacturing something just to dump him.





      Going too far is half the pleasure of not getting anywhere

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by L-1 View Post

        The problem is, DQing on the basis of moral turpitude can be problematic as what is "moral" is hard to legally define and is usually in the eye of the beholder. Before I retired, a large number of our officers worked a 4th of July detail at the beach. I lived where the event took place, was on a day off and went by to take a lot of pictures of my guys who, because it was at the beach, were surrounded by girls in bikinis. A few days later I brought the photos to the station to show others what our officers did at the event. My Captain saw the pictures and directed me put them away and not let anyone else see them as girls in bikinis "were immoral."

        You also run into the unintended consequences of DQing someone for having engaged in immoral conduct when they do something that is legal in another jurisdiction but not legal in you own. Should the DQ go to appeal, the government your agency is a part of is now in the position of having implicitly alleged that by allowing such activity, the foreign government where this took place has deliberately authorized and endorsed immoral conduct. And yes, the media will twist it that way if they get wind of things. The next thing you know, the foreign government will file a formal protest over this insult by your city/county/state with the US State Department and you may have an Ambassador or Consul General at the DQ Hearing, testifying on behalf of the Applicant and objecting to the grievous insult your agency has directed to his country.

        In short, if what someone did in a foreign land was legal there but illegal here, you need to find a specific DQ criteria that will fit, other than morality. There are other ways. To many unanswered questions on the PHS - DQ for lacking thoroughness and accuracy, and inability to follow simple written instructions.

        But at the same time, sit back and think for a minute. We want people who play by the rules. They should expect the same of us. Is it fair to DQ an applicant who played within the rules, but has done that little intangible thing that makes you not like the guy. I'm not talking about an applicant who has all sorts of red flags and warning signs that shout DON'T HIRE THIS IDIOT. I'm talking about the applicant that otherwise looks OK but has some little thing in their background just rubs you the wrong way. If that little thing is not a clear cut DQ within the rules, you shouldn't be manufacturing something just to dump him.




        So having sex with a 12 year old in a country where it’s legal is good then, right?

        Its not immoral there, they didn’t plan on being a cop at the time. So no DQ.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by CCCSD View Post

          So having sex with a 12 year old in a country where it’s legal is good then, right?

          Its not immoral there, they didn’t plan on being a cop at the time. So no DQ.
          No. As L-1 already indicated, that's still illegal under extraterritorial child exploitation laws. Specifically, 18 U.S.C. 2423(c) and/or (b).

          I never had an applicant admit to having sex with children in a foreign country where it's "legal"...but being DQed from the hiring process would be the least of their worries.
          Last edited by not.in.MY.town; 11-24-2021, 12:41 PM.

          Comment


          • #20
            As with most things in life we all have a moral compass that Should be guiding us.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by not.in.MY.town View Post

              No. As L-1 already indicated, that's still illegal under extraterritorial child exploitation laws. Specifically, 18 U.S.C. 2423(c) and/or (b).

              I never had an applicant admit to having sex with children in a foreign country where it's "legal"...but being DQed from the hiring process would be the least of their worries.
              What if the age of consent is 12? Can’t have it both ways.

              Comment


              • L-1
                L-1 commented
                Editing a comment
                Please read the section Not In My Town quoted. It doesn't matter what the age of consent is in the other country. Traveling to have sex with someone under the Age of 18 violates Federal law and would be an auto DQ.

              • Iowa #1603
                Iowa #1603 commented
                Editing a comment
                In Iowa the age of consent is 17

              • not.in.MY.town
                not.in.MY.town commented
                Editing a comment
                Iowa #1603 So? That doesn't change the fact that federal law makes it illegal for a US citizen or resident to travel abroad for the purpose of having sex with a person under the age of 18.

            MR300x250 Tablet

            Collapse

            What's Going On

            Collapse

            There are currently 2173 users online. 112 members and 2061 guests.

            Most users ever online was 158,966 at 05:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

            Welcome Ad

            Collapse
            Working...
            X