Several years ago a friend was arrested for DUI. She did like to drink, but she didn’t drive… until one night she did. (I don’t remember why she did.) She was arrested a block from her house. She spent a lot of money on a lawyer to have the charge reduced to reckless driving. She paid her lawyer, paid the fines, and did whatever it was the court told her to do. Recently she applied for a job, and her employers ran a criminal background check. It turned up ‘DUI – Reduced to reckless driving’. She got the job, but she was upset because she thought that the hoops she’d jumped through had prevented DUI from appearing on her record. Is there any way for her to have the DUI part of the Reckless Driving conviction removed from her record?
Personally I reckon that ‘reckless driving’ is far worse than DUI
DUI is driving with a bit of booze in the system, ‘reckless driving’ is being an arsehole
Personally I reckon that she should not worry about it, there are employers who would be worried if employees were too squeaky clean.
No answering the question in any way at all, but unfortunately, it doesn’t matter how many or how few times you drive drunk, the potential to do something terrible is too large. Your friend got the job, count it lucky she didn’t run over someone.
It will depend on the laws of the state where she was convicted. I understand some states have a process for expunging criminal records under certain circumstances. She’d need to ask a local lawyer if her state does such a thing, and if so, whether she qualifies for expungement.
You’d have to check with a lawyer to get a definitive answer, though I think she can petition the court to have the DUI charge expunged from the record. Why bother, though? Heck, having a DUI won’t stop you from getting a TS clearance, prevent you from joining the Army, or keep you from being elected President. The only time it might become troublesome is if she desires to become a police officer or be admitted to the bar.
Having a second conviction, on the other hand…generally bigger problems. Which is a good reason for your friend to keep her nose clean. Er, with a non-alcoholic solvent, that is. I recommend the chinanto/mnigs (which is ordinary water server at slightly above room temperature).
Stranger
What you “reckon” is irrelevant to the OP. What the charges and punishments were and what appears on her record is relevant.
Examples?
I concur with my learned brother.
Johnny, you haven’t given the jurisdiction, so I’ll give you general information about California. As always, I am not your lawyer, you are not my client, your friend isn’t my client, what follows is not legal advice, etc.
California permits criminal records to be expunged under certain circumstances.
One thing that I appreciate about California (well, one of many, including this gloriously beautiful weather we have today) is that the courts have pretty good self-help web pages. Here is a page on cleaning up your criminal record. Per that page:
Note that certain offenses may not be expunged:
(Note: I am lazy. Therefore I haven’t looked at these code sections to see what they are. But, again, your helpful California Courts website will have the sections on there if you want to look them up.)
Correct. Even after the conviction has been dismissed, it may still constitute a prior conviction for certain later offenses:
Johnny, remember that this is California information only. As Oakminster rightly pointed out, each state has different procedures. Try googling “expunge criminal record [state]” and that may help you determine whether the state at issue permits expungements. Beyond that, I’d recommend that your friend consult the attorney who handled her criminal case. Filing for an expungement (or more properly a dismissal of conviction) is a relatively simple procedure, and the lawyer probably shouldn’t charge her very much to handle it. Good luck.
In many states in the US, a conviction of DUI carries mandatory jail sentence, 3 days in some states. Reckless driving does not.
I had a beautifully written reply then my computer decided to take a crap. Just assume that my first post was much better than this one.
I am going to assume that the terms are different in the UK and not that you are a drunk driving apologist. I am using my experience and training of New Jersey law but the laws in each of the states are similar as far as I know. DUI/DWI is driving while your ability to drive is impaired by alcohol or drugs and/or the level of alcohol in your blood is over .08% BAC. It is not driving with a bit of booze in your system. It is a level at which you shouldn’t be driving. I have seen it demonstrated in a controlled environment with alcohol, drinkers and breathalyzers. I have also seen it many times on the street in less than controlled circumstances. DUI/DWI is a serious charge. More serious than reckless driving which is also a serious charge. In fact reckless driving (doing something dangerous with *intent *) can be considered as a lesser included charge in many cases. My prosecutor wants reckless driving to be included in all DWI arrests.
As to reducing DWI to reckless driving, I have seen it happen more than once. He’s how it goes. In court you have to prove impairment and/or the blood alcohol level as over .08%. The BAC is the per se argument. If it can be proved then impairment does not need to be proven except if it is being used as the probable cause. Not that there isn’t impairment, just that it doesn’t have to be proven if the per se argument holds up. It is also possible to get a conviction if the breathalyzer reading is thrown out or if the driver is impaired at a lower than .08% BAC reading. The officer can testify as to how impaired the person was. Video tape of the driver stumbling around can be shown. In reality this does not happen very often. Judges are reluctant to convict if there is not a breathalyzer reading. Prosecutors most likely won’t go forward with the case if they don’t have a reading. This happens most often when something goes wrong with the machine. It is calibrated on the 1st. The drunk gets arrested on the 5th. The machine breaks on the 20th before the next scheduled calibration. All readings after the 1st are thrown out. This happened more often when we had the old breathalyzers which were 40 years old. When the reading is thrown out most often a prosecutor will offer the lesser charge of reckless driving as a plea bargain. Most people jump at the chance to go with the lesser charge. The penalties are much less.
To answer the OP I have seen many criminal histories. The ones we have show the original charge. Whether the subject was found guilty or not guilty. If there was a plea bargain to a lesser charge. So around here an arrest for a criminal charge will be on your record even if you are found not guilty. One exception is if the person is eligible for PTI (pre trial intervention) a program for first offender where there record is automatically expunged if they keep their nose clean. FTR a DWI conviction will not show up on your criminal record here, just your driving record. It is not a criminal conviction. For your friend to expunge her record she should get a lawyer, as was said before. She got the job. She will have to think if getting rid of it is worth the expense. It doesn’t seem to be hurting her too much and as per your post it’s something she was guilty of.
The charge was in Washington State. I don’t think I ever heard her say the words ‘plea bargain’. I’ve no idea what went on during the trial or hearing or whatever. She did mention contacting the lawyer to see about having the DUI removed, but I doubt she’s done it yet.
I have a copper friend who earned a DUI within 3 years prior to his becoming a police officer. Chicago PD, FWIW. He sure likes to drink, too.
I suppose I should clarify my position.
DUI is purely technical, someone could be ‘over the limit’ but totally sober.
Reckless driving is when someone has actually done something downright dangerous.
I was surprized that she opted for ‘reckless’.
I agree that DUI should not appear on her records, no conviction = no record.
As for employers attitudes, well I live in the UK, so my experience is not necessarily relevant - but I’ve noticed that they don’t like people who smash up company cars.
If the charge was reduced from a serious charge to a lesser charge and she pled guilty to the lesser charge then it was a plea bargain. That is the definition of plea bargain. Whether or not those exact words were used at the time does not matter.
Thanks for clarifying. If the legal level of intoxication is similar to the states then your position is wrong. No one is totally sober with a BAC of .08%. Some are more affected than others but not one is sober. That is a common rationalization of heavy drinkers. They think that since they can still speak and walk better than lesser mortals when they are tanked but it still their reaction time a judgement is affected. They generallu will not see this until it is demonstrated to them in a controlled environment. Since most don’t get the chance then they continue with their dangerous behavior until something really bad happens. A higher tolerance does not equal sober. Getting into a car when you have had enough to drink to put you over the legal limit is something downright dangerous to use your words. Since it is an intentional act I would say that DWI is a form of reckless driving and in many states it is considered a lesser included offense. You shouldn’t be surprised that she opted for reckless, it carries a lesser penalty. Around here it would mean the difference between a 30 day suspension and a 6 month suspension. It would also be thousands of dollars less in fines and fees. First offense for either doesn’t usually carry any jail time in my state unless it was an accident with serious injuries.
Getting a record “expunged” is often a futile gesture. This is a relic from a time when only one “record” of the offense existed. Nowadays, that record has been sent to many private databases and will likely stay out there forever. There is nothing a court would do to force all those databases to update themselves. Tell your friend not to waste the time and money.
I would consider reckless driving as less serious, because an implication of sobriety suggests that even if the driver is being an ass, he/she is still not impaired and would be able to stop or turn the car in time to avert running into someone or something.
I am completely in accord with Stranger’s post above.
I would like to add one additional thing, though, which may apply to some of you. One thing a DUI/DWI will do is get the major car rental companies (maybe all of the minor ones, too) to quit renting to you for several years. Back when I was a computer consultant, I was working a gig with a fellow consultant when one week he asked if he could bum a ride to the airport with me. Turns out, his DUI conviction a little while back had posted to his driving record and none of the rental agencies would rent a car to him any more.
Now to most of you, this sounds like a very minor point. But to a consultant, who rents cars every week, it is not minor! The guy wound up having to take a taxi from the airport to the job site every single week, take a taxi from his hotel to work most weeks (he finally got a room where I was and went in with me), and was in the position of having to continue to do so wherever he wound up.
Folks, some of my assignments were an hour and a half drive from the airport…and a 30-minute drive every day from the hotel to the job site. The guy was out some serious, serious money, not even counting the fines & court costs.
Could he have expensed these? Heh, heh…and have his company find out about this, even on the off chance they would have paid it? Assuming they didn’t can him first, and believe me, he was sweating this very possibility if they found out.
(For the record, he did work for a consulting company, I was an independent, so no conflict of interest/ethical dilemmas here).
What I am not sure about, is if the rental companies look at a reckless driving conviction the same way as a DUI/DWI.
It may, however, cause problems for someone trying to visit Canada (which, if Johnny’s friend still lives in Washington state, is presumably not an unlikely scenario):
The above link shows some of the hoops that need to be jumped through – before arriving at the border – in order to be considered “rehabilitated”, including:
[QUOTE]
[ul]
[li]At least ten years have elapsed since all of the sentences for the conviction were completed (payment of all fees, jail time completed, restitution paid, etc.)[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
[This attorney site, although a little dated, discusses some of the potential issues involved for some high-profile former DUI offenders.]
A conviction for careless driving can get you banned from Canada? That seems a bit overboard.
You are, as I recall, unable to get into Canada with any felony conviction on your record. I’m not certain what, if any, misdemeanor convictions act to bar your entry. I’m sure the linky helps figure that out. 
As for what FRDE is saying: that position is total nonsense. Driving under the influence is most decidedly not driving “sober.” It may not mean driving as impaired as if you are hammered, but it isn’t sober. That’s WHY they set the limit where it is; note that the limit is even lower for pilots flying. Reckless driving, on the other hand, simply means you were doing any one of a number of fool things, which you might be doing totally sober, and which, frankly, you might be qualified (like my brother, for example, who races) to do quite “safely.”
As the signs around here point out: Buzzed driving is drunk driving.