See the title, please. I’ve volunteered to get this information for someone after bragging about the SDMB.
I know you guys won’t let me down. Thanks in advance.
What state did you get it in? Might also look into expungement/record sealing. Not sure if that keeps Canada away, but it will be nice to have. Many times you don’t have to involve a lawyer, just a smallish expense and your time. But I understand some states like Colorado are particularly strict, at least on paper.
Edit: maybe not “you” but state matters in this.
40 years should be plenty. The changed laws in Canada are 5/10 years currently.
See here for details.
If you go to Canada by land, you won’t even need an ETA (the electronic pre-clearance that you apply for online), so chances are the Canadian authorities wouldn’t ever hear about the DUI. If you fly to a Canadian airport, you’ll need an ETA, and it might be you’ll have to state it there.
Oh, I’m assuming California is where the DUI was. They were considering taking a train to Seattle and then crossing into Canada via a ferry, I think. They were then considering a cruise or maybe a train trip in Canada? I should get better details.
Thanks for your help guys.
It’s not that clear-cut. Canada and the US share criminal records, giving the Canadian Border service the power to check US criminal records (so I understand; I can’t cite to any details, I’m afraid). So if a US person trying to cross does not admit to the criminal record, and then it turns up on the record check, that in itself could be grounds for refusal. (Again, I can’t give a cite; just what I’ve heard from time to time.)
Since the OP’s friend is thinking about a major trip, involving a cruise or train trip, not just a day trip, they might want to look into this in more detail, rather than just rely on folks on a message board and drive to the border, hoping for the best.
Here’s a link to the federal government web-page. That would be a good place to start.
https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/travel-voyage/inadmissibility-interdiction-eng.html
Unless it is a felony DUI they cannot confirm because they only share records at a federal level. I know because I had one when I lived in Ohio and went to Canada many times.
They will try and trick you into admitting a DUI. Border guy will ask if you ever killed someone. You say no. Ever get a DUI ? Oh yeah I did long ago. NO CANADA FOR YOU! Seen it happen.
I’m not an expert in this, not a lawyer etc, just someone who has been involved in navigating this issue in the past. The first thing to understand is that the way Canada treats DUI has changed over time, around 2018 Canada upgraded DUI to being a maximum sentence of 10 years incarceration (I assume that is not a commonly levied sentence.) Canada in general treats DUI as much more serious an offense than the United States does, and their regime for letting people into their country with criminal records is actually based on how serious the offense is based on Canadian law, so it does not matter that in your home state, DUI perhaps has a maximum penalty (first offense) of six months incarceration, and customarily a first offense penalty of no incarceration. Canada’s equivalent charge is now considered a “Major Offense” and will be treated as such for border crossings.
So what does that mean? First let me say something up front that I will come back to later–December 18, 2018 if your DUI is before then, as a matter of policy this is treated differently, than if your DUI is after that date.
I’ll explain that further below (and that is the scenario that applies to the OP’s question), but as a general rule, a DUI being a crime that, if it were committed in Canada is a major offense carrying with it up to a 10 year sentence, makes you criminally inadmissible to Canada, as your default status. For a major offense the only way to remove the inadmissibility is applying for rehabilitation. You are eligible to apply for rehabilitation five years after you have completed your sentence–for Canada this means your criminal matter is “entirely disposed of”, meaning any license suspensions have ended, any probation has ended etc. After that period of time has elapsed, you have to apply for rehabilitation. Canada has extensive instructions on how to do this application here:
If you are in this category, i.e. you have a DUI after Dec 18, 2018, you should not attempt to travel to Canada without completing this. In fact, since Dec. 18, 2018 isn’t even 5 years ago, you probably should assume you cannot get into Canada, because you aren’t even eligible for rehabilitation yet (but maybe some years down the road someone reading this post in that scenario will be eligible, so I mention for posterity.) Note that you can get an electronic travel authorization into Canada which can smooth your crossing–but it IS not rehabilitation, and it is possible to get an ETA approved without being rehabilitated, arrive at the border and be told you are criminally inadmissible and ETA does not rehabilitate you, in theory they should catch that you’re inadmissible when processing an ETA application but that’s not always the case. Don’t assume something like booking a plane ticket or even getting a travel visa guarantees this process was completed.
Now why is this complicated? It’s complicated because Canada changed how serious DUIs are considered, which changed the regime for being considered admissible to the country. The old system which had been the standard rule for many years, was that because DUI was an offense in Canada punishable by incarceration of less than 10 years, you were eligible for something called “deemed rehabilitation.” That means rehabilitation without needing to formally apply for it. Under the old regime [note this is ANY offense less than 10 years, which could apply to a non-DUI charge, but DUI now is punishable by up to 10 years], you were “deemed rehabilitated”, if you had completed all sentences for the crime and 10 years had passed.
Under this regime, if your sentence was fully completed at least 5 years ago, but not 10 years ago, you would have to apply for rehabilitation (the new regime is that DUI is a major offense and you always have to apply for rehabilitation.)
So why do we even care about the old regime if it is no longer in effect? Because Canada has basically said that because Canadian law changed to view DUI as more serious on December 18, 2018; that is the cutoff date for when they will treat it as such for visitation purposes for people with DUIs outside of Canada. So if your DUI was prior to that date, you are “grandfathered” into the old system–that means if 10 years have passed since your sentence completion you are eligible for deemed rehabilitation, something you do not have to apply for at all, that is the circumstance the OP asked about.
But for fun, there’s even one more big wrinkle. I said eligible for deemed rehabilitation. That isn’t the same as actually being deemed rehabilitated. (Having fun yet?) This is the biggest source of historic “wrinkles” in this process, that trip a lot of people up. The way Canadian border control is implemented, is a border services agent is responsible for deciding, when confronted with a person previously criminally inadmissible seeking to enter Canada for the first time since that criminal inadmissibility, on that person’s status. So that means the border services agent has discretion in determining if you ought be deemed rehabilitated. Canada is willing to let you come into one of their border services facilities with paperwork in advance of your crossing, and ask them to assess your case, and tell you if you are likely to be deemed rehabilitated. Usually if they say yes, you can very likely believe that when you actually cross, the border services agent will agree. But the border services agent gets to make that determination, deemed rehabilitation is not an automatic entitlement. What would sometimes happen particularly is people with very old DUIs would just not disclose them, and that would cause the border agent, who probably has record of it, to decide you are not deemed rehabilitated because you aren’t behaving in a trustworthy manner.
Way back when I was dealing with travel issues related to this (there’s a whole TLDR there, but I used to do some business activity with a family member who this situation applied directly to, and had to sort it out for them when we would cross into Canada for business), I actually decided that if you want to be very certain–you should avoid “deemed rehabilitation” entirely. There is nothing in Canadian law that prevents someone eligible for deemed rehabilitation to actually pursue formal rehabilitation. And in fact, while it’s a more onerous process, it gives you ultimately an approved rehabilitation that is no longer subject to the discretion of the border agent. If you’ve been formally rehabilitated, the border agent has no authority to decide you aren’t. However they still always have leeway to decide not to allow you to enter Canada, especially if you lie to them or do things that might suggest you are going to engage in criminal acts or etc–short story is don’t fuck around with border agents, be honest and polite with them. If you’re in the category of having committed the offense prior to Dec of 2018, know that you may be eligible for deemed rehabilitation which requires no formal application process and can be decided upon on the day of entry, but also be aware they can decide “nope”, and as a hedge against that you can pursue formal rehabilitation.
Things have changed since 2015, as summarised by this law firm’s blog:
Maybe once. But I know someone who was turned back about two years ago for a Washington state DUI (misdemeanor). She didn’t disclose it, they had it in their computer somehow.
Canadian border officials have access to US criminal records, as outlined above.
I see your post now. Makes sense, and explains why Si_Amigo had a different experience.
I remember the old days. I was turned away at one crossing in Detroit because the agents (correctly) assumed I was working illegally in Canada. I went to the next crossing and answered the questions a little differently and got in. I doubt that would work now.
What is the significance of this language on the website:
“if you have committed or been convicted of a crime”?
Is there a difference? If you have been charged with a crime, but not convicted, say it was a murder that was nolle prossed, what would happen?
Your wrong Amigo, things have changed many times over the years, and I doubt you will be able to get in now or anytime soon. And if you lie to the border patrol at the border then that will prevent you from getting in for any reason ever again.
After 9/11 they share just about all records. They use to allow you in if it was an old case like over 10 years, but a couple of years ago Canada changed that.
You need to apply, pay a non-refundable fee, and give a good reason why you want to enter Canada, and wait to see if they will either say yes or no.
Another follow up: How does this “deemed rehabilitated” work in practice? Does the border patrol generally have a policy that after X years so long as nothing extraordinary comes up, then it is granted as a matter of course? Is it luck of the draw whether you get a nice border agent or one who lost a family member to a drunk driver who never deems anyone rehabilitated? Can the decision be utterly arbitrary such that if the border agent has a hangover and is in a bad mood he just denies you? I guess I am asking if there are internal policies that guide such things so that decisions are generally standard no matter the agent.
No idea. It may be to cover off guilty pleas; some people only think you’re convicted after a trial.
We don’t have nolle pros here, so I’ve got no idea how they would deal with that; I would think treat it as a conviction.
I would think that is the case. The federal government has policies up the yin-yang.
I doubt that they would want to leave it entirely to each officer’s sole discretion.
So what happens if a prosecutor gets an indictment (if you have that there, otherwise a formal charge) and evidence comes to light that shows the defendant is innocent or otherwise damages the case such that the prosecutor no longer wishes to pursue it?
Americans don’t ever need an ETA:
(Canadians are similarly exempt from needing an ESTA to visit the USA.)