RAIC - brush with the law

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog

flyingblind
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2016 11:12 pm

RAIC - brush with the law

Post by flyingblind » Thu Jan 14, 2016 11:22 pm

Hello All,

question about the raic application.

i saw online that any conviction of: possession for the purpose of trafficking will result in an automatic refusal of the raic. about 7 years ago i got charged with it... the charge was withdrawn and the arrest record expunged. in my case it was an over zealous cop who decided to charge me for less than a gram of pot when i was a teen.

will this kill my ability to get the raic?

to reiterate - i was NEVER CONVICTED and was a teen.

flyingblind
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Bede
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3078
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 5:52 am

Re: RAIC - brush with the law

Post by Bede » Fri Jan 15, 2016 7:19 am

It may affect your ability to get a RAIC.

I know of a care where a case was denied to a women because she was sitting outside a drug house while her boyfriend was inside. A police raid happened and she was arrested (but not charged). She was denied a RAIC and her appeal was dismissed.

Here are some examples you can look up:
https://www.canlii.org/en/#search/text= ... 0clearance

I believe in second chances, but sometimes the decisions you make now will have far more serious consequences down the road thn they do now.
---------- ADS -----------
  

altiplano
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3568
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm

Re: RAIC - brush with the law

Post by altiplano » Fri Jan 15, 2016 7:31 am

I think a youth arrest report won't carry.

I got into lots of trouble as a kid, LOTS... I have a RAIC...
---------- ADS -----------
  

Tanker299
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 153
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 7:16 am

Re: RAIC - brush with the law

Post by Tanker299 » Fri Jan 15, 2016 7:54 am

You should be fine. Juvenile records are sealed so if you were a teen and this is the reason they deny you then they are in the wrong. Also if the charges were withdrawn then you were technically never charged and once again not something that can use against you. Being charged just takes someone pointing a finger at you and their story only has to be believable to commit you to trial. ( all that said the legal jungle is a mess and I'm not a lawyer)
---------- ADS -----------
  

aerodude
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 137
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:16 am

Re: RAIC - brush with the law

Post by aerodude » Fri Jan 15, 2016 8:18 am

I find it sad that just being charged, not even convicted, can deny you having a RAIC. That is just scary!
---------- ADS -----------
  

AuxBatOn
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3012
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:13 pm
Location: North America, sometimes

Re: RAIC - brush with the law

Post by AuxBatOn » Fri Jan 15, 2016 8:56 am

For security investigation, there is a burden on the applicant to prove innocence in some cases (as oppose to prove guilt when dealing with justice). If you were charged with something, there was reasonable doubt at some point that you were involved. The fact the charges were withdrawn doesn't mean you were not up to no good, it simply means the proof wasn't strong enough, in the eyes of the prosecutors, to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

I suspect the reason why the charges were withdrawn has an effect on whether or not a RAIC will be issued. Otherwise, you'll have to prove your innocence.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Going for the deck at corner

LousyFisherman
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 578
Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 8:32 am
Location: CFX2
Contact:

Re: RAIC - brush with the law

Post by LousyFisherman » Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:05 am

AuxBatOn wrote:If you were charged with something, there was reasonable doubt at some point that you were involved.
ROTFLMAO
Which country's legal system are you referring to? Because 20%-30% of charged people in Canada would disagree with you.

LF
---------- ADS -----------
  
Women and planes have alot in common
Both are expensive, loud, and noisy.
However, when handled properly both respond well and provide great pleasure

AuxBatOn
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3012
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:13 pm
Location: North America, sometimes

Re: RAIC - brush with the law

Post by AuxBatOn » Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:10 am

LousyFisherman wrote:
AuxBatOn wrote:If you were charged with something, there was reasonable doubt at some point that you were involved.
ROTFLMAO
Which country's legal system are you referring to? Because 20%-30% of charged people in Canada would disagree with you.

LF

I did not say that because you are charged, you did it. I said there is a reasonable doubt you did it. Otherwise, I don't think any government would spend a dime on a prosecution.

The charged person may know they didn't do it. But that person is not the one making the call on prosecuting or not. The reasonable doubts are in the prosecution's team mind.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Going for the deck at corner

flyingblind2
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 10:14 am

Re: RAIC - brush with the law

Post by flyingblind2 » Fri Jan 15, 2016 10:25 am

AuxBatOn wrote:For security investigation, there is a burden on the applicant to prove innocence in some cases (as oppose to prove guilt when dealing with justice). If you were charged with something, there was reasonable doubt at some point that you were involved. The fact the charges were withdrawn doesn't mean you were not up to no good, it simply means the proof wasn't strong enough, in the eyes of the prosecutors, to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

I suspect the reason why the charges were withdrawn has an effect on whether or not a RAIC will be issued. Otherwise, you'll have to prove your innocence.

in this case, there really was no probable cause to charge me with such a major offense. as soon as the officer pulled me out of my car he looked in and picked up a crumb... and i literally mean a crumb of marijuana and immediately arrested me. the charges were withdrawn because the crown thought the charge was bogus.

what i really want to know is, will tc just flat out deny it or would they at least give me a shout to discuss first. IMHO i dont think this should have any effect on it, but after reading case after case of people who were denied im getting scared.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Tanker299
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 153
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 7:16 am

Re: RAIC - brush with the law

Post by Tanker299 » Fri Jan 15, 2016 11:01 am

Reasonable doubt has nothing to do with being charged or not. The burden is only if a persons story could be belived if it was true or being in the wrong place at the wrong time. My pa was the police for 30 years and that's what he told me(makes me about as qualified as our prime minister ). Also only serious stuff ends up being put into the cpic system before a guilty verdict. Sometimes petty convictions don't even end up being entered. Someone has to manually enter you into the cpic system and there is and always has been a back log. This Juvi crap will 90% not even show up and if it did its so minor they will remove it. Go get a vulnerable sector background check.
---------- ADS -----------
  

AuxBatOn
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3012
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:13 pm
Location: North America, sometimes

Re: RAIC - brush with the law

Post by AuxBatOn » Fri Jan 15, 2016 12:07 pm

I guess I didn't really express myself properly... If a prosecutor doesn't have reasonable belief an individual committed a crime, he will not lay charges.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Going for the deck at corner

User avatar
tellyourkidstogetarealjob
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 384
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 12:11 am
Location: Cascadia

Re: RAIC - brush with the law

Post by tellyourkidstogetarealjob » Fri Jan 15, 2016 1:31 pm

flyingblind wrote:Hello All,

question about the raic application.

i saw online that any conviction of: possession for the purpose of trafficking will result in an automatic refusal of the raic. about 7 years ago i got charged with it... the charge was withdrawn and the arrest record expunged. in my case it was an over zealous cop who decided to charge me for less than a gram of pot when i was a teen.

will this kill my ability to get the raic?

to reiterate - i was NEVER CONVICTED and was a teen.

flyingblind

This shouldn't affect your ability to get a RAIC.

When you are charged in Canada and the Crown decides not to proceed it can do so in several ways. One of the most common is to ask for a stay in proceedings. This is kind of like an adjournment. The rules may have changed over the years but, if I recall correctly, the Crown has one year to decide whether or not to proceed. In most cases they don't. If, one year after being advised of a Stay you have not been charged, your case is dead.

The RAIC application is only a very basic security level. They ask you questions about employers and residences in the last five years. Unless the form has been changed recently I don't recall questions about juvenile arrests.

In the US and many other jurisdictions it is not uncommon to encounter a question such as, "have you ever been arrested for a felony?". You may even see this on applications for US based companies doing business in Canada. This question is not normally asked in Canada. It will normally be, "have you ever been convicted of an offense for which you have not received a pardon?", or words to that effect. In other words, the threshold of proof is higher in Canada for security clearances and employers. You need only to have been arrested in some jurisdictions, in Canada you need to have been convicted. This applies to RAIC and standard federal government reliability clearances. This does not necessarily apply to Secret or Top Secret clearances which you will normally never see in aviation unless you go to work for the RCMP.

Whenever encountering any kind of security question read it carefully and answer only the information requested. Offer nothing extra. If they don't ask about juvenile pot arrests, keep your mouth shut.

I have held a Top Secret security clearance myself and had an arrest as a juvenile long before the Young Offender's Act came into being. My arrest - the only time I was ever caught - was as an eleven year old who broke into a school. I broke into houses too but was never caught (I was going through a phase!). The only reason I got caught for the school was because I went with a big mouthed friend who couldn't resist bragging to one of his friends about it and the kid turned us in. My first lesson in how teamwork can bite you on the butt.

The little fink wisely changed schools right after that.
---------- ADS -----------
  

CFR
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 776
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: CYAV

Re: RAIC - brush with the law

Post by CFR » Fri Jan 15, 2016 1:46 pm

AuxBatOn wrote:I guess I didn't really express myself properly... If a prosecutor doesn't have reasonable belief an individual committed a crime, he will not lay charges.
Belief that the accused has committed a crime is not a determining factor. Charges have already been made by the time the Crown attorney gets the file. He/she then has to ...

"Deciding whether to prosecute

The Crown attorney is responsible for deciding whether to proceed with charges against an accused person. He or she is required to prosecute cases fairly and treat all parties in the case, including victims, witnesses and the accused, in a fair manner. He or she must also consider the public interest in making a decision. The Crown attorney must answer two very important questions:

Is there a reasonable likelihood of conviction?
Is it in the public interest to proceed?
If the answer to both of these questions is yes, the Crown attorney will prosecute. If the answer to either or both of these questions is no, the Crown attorney will not prosecute. In this way, the Crown attorney exercises prosecutorial discretion. Another element of this discretion is that the Crown attorney may decide that it is not beneficial to proceed with all the charges against the accused. In that case, some of the charges may be dropped."
---------- ADS -----------
  

CFR
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 776
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: CYAV

Re: RAIC - brush with the law

Post by CFR » Fri Jan 15, 2016 1:51 pm

tellyourkidstogetarealjob wrote:
flyingblind wrote:Hello All,

question about the raic application.

i saw online that any conviction of: possession for the purpose of trafficking will result in an automatic refusal of the raic. about 7 years ago i got charged with it... the charge was withdrawn and the arrest record expunged. in my case it was an over zealous cop who decided to charge me for less than a gram of pot when i was a teen.

will this kill my ability to get the raic?

to reiterate - i was NEVER CONVICTED and was a teen.

flyingblind

This shouldn't affect your ability to get a RAIC.

When you are charged in Canada and the Crown decides not to proceed it can do so in several ways. One of the most common is to ask for a stay in proceedings. This is kind of like an adjournment. The rules may have changed over the years but, if I recall correctly, the Crown has one year to decide whether or not to proceed. In most cases they don't. If, one year after being advised of a Stay you have not been charged, your case is dead.

The RAIC application is only a very basic security level. They ask you questions about employers and residences in the last five years. Unless the form has been changed recently I don't recall questions about juvenile arrests.

In the US and many other jurisdictions it is not uncommon to encounter a question such as, "have you ever been arrested for a felony?". You may even see this on applications for US based companies doing business in Canada. This question is not normally asked in Canada. It will normally be, "have you ever been convicted of an offense for which you have not received a pardon?", or words to that effect. In other words, the threshold of proof is higher in Canada for security clearances and employers. You need only to have been arrested in some jurisdictions, in Canada you need to have been convicted. This applies to RAIC and standard federal government reliability clearances. This does not necessarily apply to Secret or Top Secret clearances which you will normally never see in aviation unless you go to work for the RCMP.

Whenever encountering any kind of security question read it carefully and answer only the information requested. Offer nothing extra. If they don't ask about juvenile pot arrests, keep your mouth shut.

I have held a Top Secret security clearance myself and had an arrest as a juvenile long before the Young Offender's Act came into being. My arrest - the only time I was ever caught - was as an eleven year old who broke into a school. I broke into houses too but was never caught (I was going through a phase!). The only reason I got caught for the school was because I went with a big mouthed friend who couldn't resist bragging to one of his friends about it and the kid turned us in. My first lesson in how teamwork can bite you on the butt.

The little fink wisely changed schools right after that.
If you want to see US border agents sit up in their booth, answer "Yes" to "Have you ever been fingerprinted?" They seem disappointed when I explain it was part of getting a security clearance.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Meatservo
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2424
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 11:07 pm
Location: Negative sequencial vortex

Re: RAIC - brush with the law

Post by Meatservo » Fri Jan 15, 2016 8:15 pm

What does "ROTLFMEOW" mean? Is this some kind of text-speak garbage you picked up from a pre-teen girl? Your point of view would have more weight if it wasn't prefaced with that inane bit of stupidity.
---------- ADS -----------
  
If I'd known I was going to live this long, I'd have taken better care of myself

esp803

Re: RAIC - brush with the law

Post by esp803 » Fri Jan 15, 2016 8:38 pm

Meat, It's just "Newspeak" - Orwell was correct.

E
---------- ADS -----------
  

cncpc
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1344
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:17 am

Re: RAIC - brush with the law

Post by cncpc » Sat Jan 16, 2016 1:53 am

I'm sure much of the above is well meaning, but please understand this loud and clear. We live in a police state.

It doesn't matter why a charge was withdrawn against you, or even if you aren't even charged, and police wrote your name down in some computer. You don't even have to have committed a crime. You can, as we've seen recently, loan your car to someone who is suspected of knowing someone who is suspected of being a criminal. Not necessary any kind of crime that would endanger the safety of aviation.

Just doing something that may demonstrate bad judgement or that you are unreliable. Pass denied.

There is nothing about bad judgement, reliability, or marijuana anywhere in the Aviation Security Regulations. There is nothing about being convicted of any crime, or a dozen crimes, as long as they don't come under criminal organization clauses in the Criminal Code. The objective of the regulations is to ensure the safety of air travel, ie. to ensure that people who mean to harm an aircraft can't get into restricted places where they might do that. Making sure that bad people don't hijack airplanes or blow them up is absolutely a valid role for Transport Canada. Wondering about organized crime isn't. Organized crime, as far as I know, has NEVER, threatened air safety in Canada. Neither has bad judgement, unreliability, or marijuana, unless that is found in the flight crew. But guess what. Bad judgement, unreliability, marijuana, or being the head of a bigger criminal organization than Stephen Harper was until recently, won't deny you a pilot's license.

And none of those things stop you from being a passenger. They only stop you from going in a secured area.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.

MUSKEG
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 859
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 11:49 am

Re: RAIC - brush with the law

Post by MUSKEG » Sat Jan 16, 2016 5:19 am

"I'm sure much of the above is well meaning, but please understand this loud and clear. We live in a police state." Quote

Cncpc- you have NO idea what a police state is do you?
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
grimey
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2979
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 1:01 am
Location: somewhere drunk

Re: RAIC - brush with the law

Post by grimey » Sat Jan 16, 2016 6:49 am

cncpc wrote: There is nothing about bad judgement, reliability, or marijuana anywhere in the Aviation Security Regulations. There is nothing about being convicted of any crime, or a dozen crimes, as long as they don't come under criminal organization clauses in the Criminal Code. The objective of the regulations is to ensure the safety of air travel, ie. to ensure that people who mean to harm an aircraft can't get into restricted places where they might do that. Making sure that bad people don't hijack airplanes or blow them up is absolutely a valid role for Transport Canada. Wondering about organized crime isn't. Organized crime, as far as I know, has NEVER, threatened air safety in Canada. Neither has bad judgement, unreliability, or marijuana, unless that is found in the flight crew. But guess what. Bad judgement, unreliability, marijuana, or being the head of a bigger criminal organization than Stephen Harper was until recently, won't deny you a pilot's license.
Smuggling god knows what by cramming it into places that shit doesn't belong could certainly threaten air safety.
---------- ADS -----------
  
no sig because apparently quoting people in context is offensive to them.

cncpc
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1344
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:17 am

Re: RAIC - brush with the law

Post by cncpc » Sat Jan 16, 2016 12:13 pm

MUSKEG wrote:"I'm sure much of the above is well meaning, but please understand this loud and clear. We live in a police state." Quote

Cncpc- you have NO idea what a police state is do you?
Muskeg I have every idea of what a police state is and so do most of the posters on this forum. In our country, people can be denied employment based on unproven allegations which are gathered and doled out by a central police agency. The fact that these allegations do not progress through a determinative process characteristic of a free state results in a default to a police state conclusion. Any allegation of criminal behaviour in a free state, must before there are any negative consequences for the suspect, be put by the accuser to the police who gather evidence, if any, and submit it to a Crown prosecutor who decides if there is sufficient evidence of guilt to put it to a court of law, which makes the final, and ONLY determination of guilt of any citizen. The police are not the arbiters of anyone's guilt nor is the woman in charge of RAIC pass issuance.

Here's a bit of info for you from Wikipedia.

Police state is a term denoting a government that exercises power arbitrarily through the power of the police force. Originally the term designated a state regulated by a civil administration, but since the beginning of the 20th century, the term has "taken on an emotional and derogatory meaning" by describing an undesirable state of living characterized by the overbearing presence of the civil authorities.

Because there are different political perspectives as to what an appropriate balance is between individual freedom and national security, there are no objective standards defining a police state. This concept can be viewed as a balance or scale. Along this spectrum, any law which has the effect of removing liberty is seen as moving towards a police state, while any law that limits government oversight is seen as moving towards a free state.

So its not that I don't have an idea of what a police state is. I have a different and much more informed idea than you do. You choose to try and make your idea, which is an idea which enables the growth of a police state in our country, win out by declaring that I have NO idea.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by cncpc on Sat Jan 16, 2016 12:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.

LousyFisherman
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 578
Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 8:32 am
Location: CFX2
Contact:

Re: RAIC - brush with the law

Post by LousyFisherman » Sat Jan 16, 2016 12:15 pm

AuxBatOn wrote:I guess I didn't really express myself properly... If a prosecutor doesn't have reasonable belief an individual committed a crime, he will not lay charges.
Since, in Canada, it is the police officer who must lay the charge when he arrests you I have no idea which country you are referring to.
Meatservo wrote:What does "ROTLFMEOW" mean? Is this some kind of text-speak garbage you picked up from a pre-teen girl? Your point of view would have more weight if it wasn't prefaced with that inane bit of stupidity.
You know there is this thing called Google which can provide you an answer. Or are you still listening to Led Zepplin on your 8 track.

LF
---------- ADS -----------
  
Women and planes have alot in common
Both are expensive, loud, and noisy.
However, when handled properly both respond well and provide great pleasure

av8ts
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 792
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 8:31 am

Re: RAIC - brush with the law

Post by av8ts » Sat Jan 16, 2016 12:27 pm

I googled ROTLFMEOW and the only thing that came up was this forum. LOL
---------- ADS -----------
  

cncpc
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1344
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:17 am

Re: RAIC - brush with the law

Post by cncpc » Sat Jan 16, 2016 12:40 pm

grimey wrote:
cncpc wrote: There is nothing about bad judgement, reliability, or marijuana anywhere in the Aviation Security Regulations. There is nothing about being convicted of any crime, or a dozen crimes, as long as they don't come under criminal organization clauses in the Criminal Code. The objective of the regulations is to ensure the safety of air travel, ie. to ensure that people who mean to harm an aircraft can't get into restricted places where they might do that. Making sure that bad people don't hijack airplanes or blow them up is absolutely a valid role for Transport Canada. Wondering about organized crime isn't. Organized crime, as far as I know, has NEVER, threatened air safety in Canada. Neither has bad judgement, unreliability, or marijuana, unless that is found in the flight crew. But guess what. Bad judgement, unreliability, marijuana, or being the head of a bigger criminal organization than Stephen Harper was until recently, won't deny you a pilot's license.
Smuggling god knows what by cramming it into places that shit doesn't belong could certainly threaten air safety.
You advance a premise, which for starters indicates that only God knows what you might be talking about, as a statement that justifies exactly what, as far as my quote goes?

I'm not getting on your case, but I am pointing out how specious the arguments are that can be used to cause our fellow Canadians to lose their livelihood and their security of the person.

I invite you to sit back, take a deep breath, and look at your statement and consider a scenario in which some hypothetical pass holder is carrying some container of God only knows what, furtively entering a restricted area, taking panels off an aircraft where shit doesn't belong, and then using some tool that they got by the scanner into the restricted area to close up the place where shit doesn't belong. What are the flaws in that scenario?
---------- ADS -----------
  
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.

Meatservo
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2424
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 11:07 pm
Location: Negative sequencial vortex

Re: RAIC - brush with the law

Post by Meatservo » Sat Jan 16, 2016 1:10 pm

cncpc wrote: What are the flaws in that scenario?
Well, the first thing that springs to mind is that the shit doesn't belong there. You said so yourself.

ROTLFMOWhatever

Hey, Lousy, I did what you suggested and "googled" your little phrase. Here's what "Urban Dictionary" had to say:
A chatroom abbreviation used mainly by imbeciles, usually in response to something mildly, often very mildly, amusing. People who use this type of shorthand should be avoided like the Spanish flu.

I would've married her, but I found out that she goes into chatrooms and uses shorthand like LOL and ROTFLMAO. Therefore, I broke off our engagement and changed the locks to my apartment.
---------- ADS -----------
  
If I'd known I was going to live this long, I'd have taken better care of myself

cncpc
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1344
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:17 am

Re: RAIC - brush with the law

Post by cncpc » Sat Jan 16, 2016 1:18 pm

Meatservo wrote:
cncpc wrote: What are the flaws in that scenario?
Well, the first thing that springs to mind is that the shit doesn't belong there. You said so yourself.
That's not a flaw, that's just a part of the scenario.

And I didn't say so, Grimey said it. I don't have a problem with that bit. Sure, shit doesn't belong in some parts of airplanes.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.

Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”