Can a person be banned from flying within the U.S. if he has a criminal record?
up vote
29
down vote
favorite
My ex-son-in-law insists that he cannot fly from California to Ohio to visit his children because he is banned from flying due to an arrest about 3 years ago. He is a U.S. citizen and has lived in California all his life. Can people with minor offenses be stopped at airports in the U.S. because of this?
air-travel
New contributor
|
show 5 more comments
up vote
29
down vote
favorite
My ex-son-in-law insists that he cannot fly from California to Ohio to visit his children because he is banned from flying due to an arrest about 3 years ago. He is a U.S. citizen and has lived in California all his life. Can people with minor offenses be stopped at airports in the U.S. because of this?
air-travel
New contributor
12
You might get a more detailed legal analysis at Law.
– phoog
2 days ago
10
I just want to clarify does CA = California, not Canada or Central America? It seems to be so
– axsvl77
2 days ago
7
@axsvl77 that's a good question. I think "across the U.S." in the title can be taken as a clear indication that "CA" here means California.
– phoog
2 days ago
12
@axsvl77 Yeah, CA being both the state code for California and the country code for Canada does lead to some amusing situations. There's an Ontario in California, too, so I occasionally receive packages shipped from "Ontario, CA, USA," which makes it look like the U.S. annexed Canada.
– reirab
yesterday
2
@ESR and he says 'well those people on the internet are wrong, who do you trust, me or some internet randos?'. Now what? Still can't force him to fly.
– AakashM
yesterday
|
show 5 more comments
up vote
29
down vote
favorite
up vote
29
down vote
favorite
My ex-son-in-law insists that he cannot fly from California to Ohio to visit his children because he is banned from flying due to an arrest about 3 years ago. He is a U.S. citizen and has lived in California all his life. Can people with minor offenses be stopped at airports in the U.S. because of this?
air-travel
New contributor
My ex-son-in-law insists that he cannot fly from California to Ohio to visit his children because he is banned from flying due to an arrest about 3 years ago. He is a U.S. citizen and has lived in California all his life. Can people with minor offenses be stopped at airports in the U.S. because of this?
air-travel
air-travel
New contributor
New contributor
edited 5 hours ago
David Richerby
10.3k73972
10.3k73972
New contributor
asked 2 days ago
C.K. Fortman
14923
14923
New contributor
New contributor
12
You might get a more detailed legal analysis at Law.
– phoog
2 days ago
10
I just want to clarify does CA = California, not Canada or Central America? It seems to be so
– axsvl77
2 days ago
7
@axsvl77 that's a good question. I think "across the U.S." in the title can be taken as a clear indication that "CA" here means California.
– phoog
2 days ago
12
@axsvl77 Yeah, CA being both the state code for California and the country code for Canada does lead to some amusing situations. There's an Ontario in California, too, so I occasionally receive packages shipped from "Ontario, CA, USA," which makes it look like the U.S. annexed Canada.
– reirab
yesterday
2
@ESR and he says 'well those people on the internet are wrong, who do you trust, me or some internet randos?'. Now what? Still can't force him to fly.
– AakashM
yesterday
|
show 5 more comments
12
You might get a more detailed legal analysis at Law.
– phoog
2 days ago
10
I just want to clarify does CA = California, not Canada or Central America? It seems to be so
– axsvl77
2 days ago
7
@axsvl77 that's a good question. I think "across the U.S." in the title can be taken as a clear indication that "CA" here means California.
– phoog
2 days ago
12
@axsvl77 Yeah, CA being both the state code for California and the country code for Canada does lead to some amusing situations. There's an Ontario in California, too, so I occasionally receive packages shipped from "Ontario, CA, USA," which makes it look like the U.S. annexed Canada.
– reirab
yesterday
2
@ESR and he says 'well those people on the internet are wrong, who do you trust, me or some internet randos?'. Now what? Still can't force him to fly.
– AakashM
yesterday
12
12
You might get a more detailed legal analysis at Law.
– phoog
2 days ago
You might get a more detailed legal analysis at Law.
– phoog
2 days ago
10
10
I just want to clarify does CA = California, not Canada or Central America? It seems to be so
– axsvl77
2 days ago
I just want to clarify does CA = California, not Canada or Central America? It seems to be so
– axsvl77
2 days ago
7
7
@axsvl77 that's a good question. I think "across the U.S." in the title can be taken as a clear indication that "CA" here means California.
– phoog
2 days ago
@axsvl77 that's a good question. I think "across the U.S." in the title can be taken as a clear indication that "CA" here means California.
– phoog
2 days ago
12
12
@axsvl77 Yeah, CA being both the state code for California and the country code for Canada does lead to some amusing situations. There's an Ontario in California, too, so I occasionally receive packages shipped from "Ontario, CA, USA," which makes it look like the U.S. annexed Canada.
– reirab
yesterday
@axsvl77 Yeah, CA being both the state code for California and the country code for Canada does lead to some amusing situations. There's an Ontario in California, too, so I occasionally receive packages shipped from "Ontario, CA, USA," which makes it look like the U.S. annexed Canada.
– reirab
yesterday
2
2
@ESR and he says 'well those people on the internet are wrong, who do you trust, me or some internet randos?'. Now what? Still can't force him to fly.
– AakashM
yesterday
@ESR and he says 'well those people on the internet are wrong, who do you trust, me or some internet randos?'. Now what? Still can't force him to fly.
– AakashM
yesterday
|
show 5 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
96
down vote
There are a couple of possibilities:
This person received a DUI or other infraction which resulted in their driver’s license being revoked, which makes it harder to check in for a flight. However, they can apply for a State ID or even a passport for identification purposes if they so choose.
They are on a Do-Not-Fly list. This would have to either be because they are thought to be terrorists or have the same name as one. They can petition to be removed.
The conditions of their bail or parole require them to remain in the same city or county or state. This limits more than flying so would also preclude leaving by car or bus or train. This type of restriction is quite common. It’s also time-delimited so you should be able to ask when this bail- or parole-restriction ends — and travel is often possible with prior permission from the court or parole officer(as @David notes).
A variation of #3 is that they have an outstanding warrant in either their origin airport locale, destination locale, or at the federal level and are afraid that once they present at the airport, they will be arrested. The TSA does not actually check for outstanding warrants as part of normal practice, but the traveler may nonetheless be afraid of that possibility.
There may be a restraining order against this individual, perhaps from their former spouse that would make visiting their children difficult, however usually these allow for a third party (for example, grandparents) handoff of kids.
They may have a no-trespass order from an airline or an airport but that usually doesn’t preclude going to another airline or airport.
This may all be just an excuse not to see their own child for their own reasons.
My guess is that it is item #3 (or #7).
5
Might companies put people on #2 for offences short of terrorism? Such as the case of an airplane forced to make extra landing to remove unruly passenger from the plane?
– gerrit
2 days ago
10
@gerrit +1 it’s a possibility but being banned (for example) from Delta wouldn’t mean you couldn’t fly Southwest. I was trying to think of something that would get you banned from all airlines.
– RoboKaren
2 days ago
14
@gerrit the terrorist no fly list is maintained by the government. Companies cannot put people on it. But they can have their own lists based on facts such as the one you describe.
– phoog
2 days ago
4
As the OP is the parent of the former spouse, I'm guessing he/she would know if it's the fifth possibility.
– Henrik
2 days ago
12
The restriction listed as possibility #3 is often that the subject cannot travel out of state unless permission is first obtained from the parole or probation officer. And I must add that it's entirely possible that this individual doesn't want to travel, and uses his years-old arrest as a pretext.
– David
2 days ago
|
show 6 more comments
up vote
9
down vote
Technically speaking, no. An arrest is not a conviction and simply being arrested cannot have that kind of punishment. If he was arrested AND convicted, then yes, it is possible that as either part of his punishment or as part of the conditions of his parole, he is not able to fly. It is also possible, if he is still pending trial, that he may not be allowed to travel that far away.
5
The title says the person in question has a criminal record therefore I think it’s safe to say they were arrested and convicted. As such the first part of this answer is being overly pedantic (and that’s coming from a very pedantic person).
– Notts90
yesterday
2
@Notts90 I was basing that on the text of the question rather than the title.
– Kevin
yesterday
2
Far more likely that he has had some part of his sentence suspended or paroled, and as a condition of that, he is not allowed to leave the state without good reason and/or some sort of supervision. He could fly to Sacramento, but not Guam or Ohio.
– Harper
yesterday
2
@Kevin the text in the question was ambiguous, the title was not. Why did you decide to go with the question text? This answer would be improved without the arrest vs conviction part, because we know he WAS convicted (he has a record)
– user79730
yesterday
2
@Harper I'm rather in favor of the hypothesis that the deadbeat ex-son-in-law is falsely claiming to be unable to travel because he wants to avoid the perceived burden of flying halfway across the country to see his kids.
– phoog
16 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
4
down vote
I have traveled out of the country and in the country multiple times with not only someone who has been arrested but with someone who was convicted of manufacturing mushrooms with intent to distribute. They have 2 felonies and are not on probation or parole. So, he is either not telling you the entire story, is just outright lying to you, or is ignorant in this matter.
I suggest to you to call his bluff and tell him you spoke with a criminal lawyer (Someone at work, a friend, a neighbor whatever) and they said there is no reason you can not fly if you are not on a do not fly list, probation, or parole. See what his reponse is, back him into a corner on the issue.
Illegal immigrants can still fly within the USA and tey do not get caught. All you need is an ID and an airline ticket that matches that ID. Well, you also need the will to go. But who am I... just another ignorant person on the internet maybe.
New contributor
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
96
down vote
There are a couple of possibilities:
This person received a DUI or other infraction which resulted in their driver’s license being revoked, which makes it harder to check in for a flight. However, they can apply for a State ID or even a passport for identification purposes if they so choose.
They are on a Do-Not-Fly list. This would have to either be because they are thought to be terrorists or have the same name as one. They can petition to be removed.
The conditions of their bail or parole require them to remain in the same city or county or state. This limits more than flying so would also preclude leaving by car or bus or train. This type of restriction is quite common. It’s also time-delimited so you should be able to ask when this bail- or parole-restriction ends — and travel is often possible with prior permission from the court or parole officer(as @David notes).
A variation of #3 is that they have an outstanding warrant in either their origin airport locale, destination locale, or at the federal level and are afraid that once they present at the airport, they will be arrested. The TSA does not actually check for outstanding warrants as part of normal practice, but the traveler may nonetheless be afraid of that possibility.
There may be a restraining order against this individual, perhaps from their former spouse that would make visiting their children difficult, however usually these allow for a third party (for example, grandparents) handoff of kids.
They may have a no-trespass order from an airline or an airport but that usually doesn’t preclude going to another airline or airport.
This may all be just an excuse not to see their own child for their own reasons.
My guess is that it is item #3 (or #7).
5
Might companies put people on #2 for offences short of terrorism? Such as the case of an airplane forced to make extra landing to remove unruly passenger from the plane?
– gerrit
2 days ago
10
@gerrit +1 it’s a possibility but being banned (for example) from Delta wouldn’t mean you couldn’t fly Southwest. I was trying to think of something that would get you banned from all airlines.
– RoboKaren
2 days ago
14
@gerrit the terrorist no fly list is maintained by the government. Companies cannot put people on it. But they can have their own lists based on facts such as the one you describe.
– phoog
2 days ago
4
As the OP is the parent of the former spouse, I'm guessing he/she would know if it's the fifth possibility.
– Henrik
2 days ago
12
The restriction listed as possibility #3 is often that the subject cannot travel out of state unless permission is first obtained from the parole or probation officer. And I must add that it's entirely possible that this individual doesn't want to travel, and uses his years-old arrest as a pretext.
– David
2 days ago
|
show 6 more comments
up vote
96
down vote
There are a couple of possibilities:
This person received a DUI or other infraction which resulted in their driver’s license being revoked, which makes it harder to check in for a flight. However, they can apply for a State ID or even a passport for identification purposes if they so choose.
They are on a Do-Not-Fly list. This would have to either be because they are thought to be terrorists or have the same name as one. They can petition to be removed.
The conditions of their bail or parole require them to remain in the same city or county or state. This limits more than flying so would also preclude leaving by car or bus or train. This type of restriction is quite common. It’s also time-delimited so you should be able to ask when this bail- or parole-restriction ends — and travel is often possible with prior permission from the court or parole officer(as @David notes).
A variation of #3 is that they have an outstanding warrant in either their origin airport locale, destination locale, or at the federal level and are afraid that once they present at the airport, they will be arrested. The TSA does not actually check for outstanding warrants as part of normal practice, but the traveler may nonetheless be afraid of that possibility.
There may be a restraining order against this individual, perhaps from their former spouse that would make visiting their children difficult, however usually these allow for a third party (for example, grandparents) handoff of kids.
They may have a no-trespass order from an airline or an airport but that usually doesn’t preclude going to another airline or airport.
This may all be just an excuse not to see their own child for their own reasons.
My guess is that it is item #3 (or #7).
5
Might companies put people on #2 for offences short of terrorism? Such as the case of an airplane forced to make extra landing to remove unruly passenger from the plane?
– gerrit
2 days ago
10
@gerrit +1 it’s a possibility but being banned (for example) from Delta wouldn’t mean you couldn’t fly Southwest. I was trying to think of something that would get you banned from all airlines.
– RoboKaren
2 days ago
14
@gerrit the terrorist no fly list is maintained by the government. Companies cannot put people on it. But they can have their own lists based on facts such as the one you describe.
– phoog
2 days ago
4
As the OP is the parent of the former spouse, I'm guessing he/she would know if it's the fifth possibility.
– Henrik
2 days ago
12
The restriction listed as possibility #3 is often that the subject cannot travel out of state unless permission is first obtained from the parole or probation officer. And I must add that it's entirely possible that this individual doesn't want to travel, and uses his years-old arrest as a pretext.
– David
2 days ago
|
show 6 more comments
up vote
96
down vote
up vote
96
down vote
There are a couple of possibilities:
This person received a DUI or other infraction which resulted in their driver’s license being revoked, which makes it harder to check in for a flight. However, they can apply for a State ID or even a passport for identification purposes if they so choose.
They are on a Do-Not-Fly list. This would have to either be because they are thought to be terrorists or have the same name as one. They can petition to be removed.
The conditions of their bail or parole require them to remain in the same city or county or state. This limits more than flying so would also preclude leaving by car or bus or train. This type of restriction is quite common. It’s also time-delimited so you should be able to ask when this bail- or parole-restriction ends — and travel is often possible with prior permission from the court or parole officer(as @David notes).
A variation of #3 is that they have an outstanding warrant in either their origin airport locale, destination locale, or at the federal level and are afraid that once they present at the airport, they will be arrested. The TSA does not actually check for outstanding warrants as part of normal practice, but the traveler may nonetheless be afraid of that possibility.
There may be a restraining order against this individual, perhaps from their former spouse that would make visiting their children difficult, however usually these allow for a third party (for example, grandparents) handoff of kids.
They may have a no-trespass order from an airline or an airport but that usually doesn’t preclude going to another airline or airport.
This may all be just an excuse not to see their own child for their own reasons.
My guess is that it is item #3 (or #7).
There are a couple of possibilities:
This person received a DUI or other infraction which resulted in their driver’s license being revoked, which makes it harder to check in for a flight. However, they can apply for a State ID or even a passport for identification purposes if they so choose.
They are on a Do-Not-Fly list. This would have to either be because they are thought to be terrorists or have the same name as one. They can petition to be removed.
The conditions of their bail or parole require them to remain in the same city or county or state. This limits more than flying so would also preclude leaving by car or bus or train. This type of restriction is quite common. It’s also time-delimited so you should be able to ask when this bail- or parole-restriction ends — and travel is often possible with prior permission from the court or parole officer(as @David notes).
A variation of #3 is that they have an outstanding warrant in either their origin airport locale, destination locale, or at the federal level and are afraid that once they present at the airport, they will be arrested. The TSA does not actually check for outstanding warrants as part of normal practice, but the traveler may nonetheless be afraid of that possibility.
There may be a restraining order against this individual, perhaps from their former spouse that would make visiting their children difficult, however usually these allow for a third party (for example, grandparents) handoff of kids.
They may have a no-trespass order from an airline or an airport but that usually doesn’t preclude going to another airline or airport.
This may all be just an excuse not to see their own child for their own reasons.
My guess is that it is item #3 (or #7).
edited 7 hours ago
answered 2 days ago
RoboKaren
11.3k13164
11.3k13164
5
Might companies put people on #2 for offences short of terrorism? Such as the case of an airplane forced to make extra landing to remove unruly passenger from the plane?
– gerrit
2 days ago
10
@gerrit +1 it’s a possibility but being banned (for example) from Delta wouldn’t mean you couldn’t fly Southwest. I was trying to think of something that would get you banned from all airlines.
– RoboKaren
2 days ago
14
@gerrit the terrorist no fly list is maintained by the government. Companies cannot put people on it. But they can have their own lists based on facts such as the one you describe.
– phoog
2 days ago
4
As the OP is the parent of the former spouse, I'm guessing he/she would know if it's the fifth possibility.
– Henrik
2 days ago
12
The restriction listed as possibility #3 is often that the subject cannot travel out of state unless permission is first obtained from the parole or probation officer. And I must add that it's entirely possible that this individual doesn't want to travel, and uses his years-old arrest as a pretext.
– David
2 days ago
|
show 6 more comments
5
Might companies put people on #2 for offences short of terrorism? Such as the case of an airplane forced to make extra landing to remove unruly passenger from the plane?
– gerrit
2 days ago
10
@gerrit +1 it’s a possibility but being banned (for example) from Delta wouldn’t mean you couldn’t fly Southwest. I was trying to think of something that would get you banned from all airlines.
– RoboKaren
2 days ago
14
@gerrit the terrorist no fly list is maintained by the government. Companies cannot put people on it. But they can have their own lists based on facts such as the one you describe.
– phoog
2 days ago
4
As the OP is the parent of the former spouse, I'm guessing he/she would know if it's the fifth possibility.
– Henrik
2 days ago
12
The restriction listed as possibility #3 is often that the subject cannot travel out of state unless permission is first obtained from the parole or probation officer. And I must add that it's entirely possible that this individual doesn't want to travel, and uses his years-old arrest as a pretext.
– David
2 days ago
5
5
Might companies put people on #2 for offences short of terrorism? Such as the case of an airplane forced to make extra landing to remove unruly passenger from the plane?
– gerrit
2 days ago
Might companies put people on #2 for offences short of terrorism? Such as the case of an airplane forced to make extra landing to remove unruly passenger from the plane?
– gerrit
2 days ago
10
10
@gerrit +1 it’s a possibility but being banned (for example) from Delta wouldn’t mean you couldn’t fly Southwest. I was trying to think of something that would get you banned from all airlines.
– RoboKaren
2 days ago
@gerrit +1 it’s a possibility but being banned (for example) from Delta wouldn’t mean you couldn’t fly Southwest. I was trying to think of something that would get you banned from all airlines.
– RoboKaren
2 days ago
14
14
@gerrit the terrorist no fly list is maintained by the government. Companies cannot put people on it. But they can have their own lists based on facts such as the one you describe.
– phoog
2 days ago
@gerrit the terrorist no fly list is maintained by the government. Companies cannot put people on it. But they can have their own lists based on facts such as the one you describe.
– phoog
2 days ago
4
4
As the OP is the parent of the former spouse, I'm guessing he/she would know if it's the fifth possibility.
– Henrik
2 days ago
As the OP is the parent of the former spouse, I'm guessing he/she would know if it's the fifth possibility.
– Henrik
2 days ago
12
12
The restriction listed as possibility #3 is often that the subject cannot travel out of state unless permission is first obtained from the parole or probation officer. And I must add that it's entirely possible that this individual doesn't want to travel, and uses his years-old arrest as a pretext.
– David
2 days ago
The restriction listed as possibility #3 is often that the subject cannot travel out of state unless permission is first obtained from the parole or probation officer. And I must add that it's entirely possible that this individual doesn't want to travel, and uses his years-old arrest as a pretext.
– David
2 days ago
|
show 6 more comments
up vote
9
down vote
Technically speaking, no. An arrest is not a conviction and simply being arrested cannot have that kind of punishment. If he was arrested AND convicted, then yes, it is possible that as either part of his punishment or as part of the conditions of his parole, he is not able to fly. It is also possible, if he is still pending trial, that he may not be allowed to travel that far away.
5
The title says the person in question has a criminal record therefore I think it’s safe to say they were arrested and convicted. As such the first part of this answer is being overly pedantic (and that’s coming from a very pedantic person).
– Notts90
yesterday
2
@Notts90 I was basing that on the text of the question rather than the title.
– Kevin
yesterday
2
Far more likely that he has had some part of his sentence suspended or paroled, and as a condition of that, he is not allowed to leave the state without good reason and/or some sort of supervision. He could fly to Sacramento, but not Guam or Ohio.
– Harper
yesterday
2
@Kevin the text in the question was ambiguous, the title was not. Why did you decide to go with the question text? This answer would be improved without the arrest vs conviction part, because we know he WAS convicted (he has a record)
– user79730
yesterday
2
@Harper I'm rather in favor of the hypothesis that the deadbeat ex-son-in-law is falsely claiming to be unable to travel because he wants to avoid the perceived burden of flying halfway across the country to see his kids.
– phoog
16 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
9
down vote
Technically speaking, no. An arrest is not a conviction and simply being arrested cannot have that kind of punishment. If he was arrested AND convicted, then yes, it is possible that as either part of his punishment or as part of the conditions of his parole, he is not able to fly. It is also possible, if he is still pending trial, that he may not be allowed to travel that far away.
5
The title says the person in question has a criminal record therefore I think it’s safe to say they were arrested and convicted. As such the first part of this answer is being overly pedantic (and that’s coming from a very pedantic person).
– Notts90
yesterday
2
@Notts90 I was basing that on the text of the question rather than the title.
– Kevin
yesterday
2
Far more likely that he has had some part of his sentence suspended or paroled, and as a condition of that, he is not allowed to leave the state without good reason and/or some sort of supervision. He could fly to Sacramento, but not Guam or Ohio.
– Harper
yesterday
2
@Kevin the text in the question was ambiguous, the title was not. Why did you decide to go with the question text? This answer would be improved without the arrest vs conviction part, because we know he WAS convicted (he has a record)
– user79730
yesterday
2
@Harper I'm rather in favor of the hypothesis that the deadbeat ex-son-in-law is falsely claiming to be unable to travel because he wants to avoid the perceived burden of flying halfway across the country to see his kids.
– phoog
16 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
9
down vote
up vote
9
down vote
Technically speaking, no. An arrest is not a conviction and simply being arrested cannot have that kind of punishment. If he was arrested AND convicted, then yes, it is possible that as either part of his punishment or as part of the conditions of his parole, he is not able to fly. It is also possible, if he is still pending trial, that he may not be allowed to travel that far away.
Technically speaking, no. An arrest is not a conviction and simply being arrested cannot have that kind of punishment. If he was arrested AND convicted, then yes, it is possible that as either part of his punishment or as part of the conditions of his parole, he is not able to fly. It is also possible, if he is still pending trial, that he may not be allowed to travel that far away.
answered 2 days ago
Kevin
41729
41729
5
The title says the person in question has a criminal record therefore I think it’s safe to say they were arrested and convicted. As such the first part of this answer is being overly pedantic (and that’s coming from a very pedantic person).
– Notts90
yesterday
2
@Notts90 I was basing that on the text of the question rather than the title.
– Kevin
yesterday
2
Far more likely that he has had some part of his sentence suspended or paroled, and as a condition of that, he is not allowed to leave the state without good reason and/or some sort of supervision. He could fly to Sacramento, but not Guam or Ohio.
– Harper
yesterday
2
@Kevin the text in the question was ambiguous, the title was not. Why did you decide to go with the question text? This answer would be improved without the arrest vs conviction part, because we know he WAS convicted (he has a record)
– user79730
yesterday
2
@Harper I'm rather in favor of the hypothesis that the deadbeat ex-son-in-law is falsely claiming to be unable to travel because he wants to avoid the perceived burden of flying halfway across the country to see his kids.
– phoog
16 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
5
The title says the person in question has a criminal record therefore I think it’s safe to say they were arrested and convicted. As such the first part of this answer is being overly pedantic (and that’s coming from a very pedantic person).
– Notts90
yesterday
2
@Notts90 I was basing that on the text of the question rather than the title.
– Kevin
yesterday
2
Far more likely that he has had some part of his sentence suspended or paroled, and as a condition of that, he is not allowed to leave the state without good reason and/or some sort of supervision. He could fly to Sacramento, but not Guam or Ohio.
– Harper
yesterday
2
@Kevin the text in the question was ambiguous, the title was not. Why did you decide to go with the question text? This answer would be improved without the arrest vs conviction part, because we know he WAS convicted (he has a record)
– user79730
yesterday
2
@Harper I'm rather in favor of the hypothesis that the deadbeat ex-son-in-law is falsely claiming to be unable to travel because he wants to avoid the perceived burden of flying halfway across the country to see his kids.
– phoog
16 hours ago
5
5
The title says the person in question has a criminal record therefore I think it’s safe to say they were arrested and convicted. As such the first part of this answer is being overly pedantic (and that’s coming from a very pedantic person).
– Notts90
yesterday
The title says the person in question has a criminal record therefore I think it’s safe to say they were arrested and convicted. As such the first part of this answer is being overly pedantic (and that’s coming from a very pedantic person).
– Notts90
yesterday
2
2
@Notts90 I was basing that on the text of the question rather than the title.
– Kevin
yesterday
@Notts90 I was basing that on the text of the question rather than the title.
– Kevin
yesterday
2
2
Far more likely that he has had some part of his sentence suspended or paroled, and as a condition of that, he is not allowed to leave the state without good reason and/or some sort of supervision. He could fly to Sacramento, but not Guam or Ohio.
– Harper
yesterday
Far more likely that he has had some part of his sentence suspended or paroled, and as a condition of that, he is not allowed to leave the state without good reason and/or some sort of supervision. He could fly to Sacramento, but not Guam or Ohio.
– Harper
yesterday
2
2
@Kevin the text in the question was ambiguous, the title was not. Why did you decide to go with the question text? This answer would be improved without the arrest vs conviction part, because we know he WAS convicted (he has a record)
– user79730
yesterday
@Kevin the text in the question was ambiguous, the title was not. Why did you decide to go with the question text? This answer would be improved without the arrest vs conviction part, because we know he WAS convicted (he has a record)
– user79730
yesterday
2
2
@Harper I'm rather in favor of the hypothesis that the deadbeat ex-son-in-law is falsely claiming to be unable to travel because he wants to avoid the perceived burden of flying halfway across the country to see his kids.
– phoog
16 hours ago
@Harper I'm rather in favor of the hypothesis that the deadbeat ex-son-in-law is falsely claiming to be unable to travel because he wants to avoid the perceived burden of flying halfway across the country to see his kids.
– phoog
16 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
4
down vote
I have traveled out of the country and in the country multiple times with not only someone who has been arrested but with someone who was convicted of manufacturing mushrooms with intent to distribute. They have 2 felonies and are not on probation or parole. So, he is either not telling you the entire story, is just outright lying to you, or is ignorant in this matter.
I suggest to you to call his bluff and tell him you spoke with a criminal lawyer (Someone at work, a friend, a neighbor whatever) and they said there is no reason you can not fly if you are not on a do not fly list, probation, or parole. See what his reponse is, back him into a corner on the issue.
Illegal immigrants can still fly within the USA and tey do not get caught. All you need is an ID and an airline ticket that matches that ID. Well, you also need the will to go. But who am I... just another ignorant person on the internet maybe.
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
I have traveled out of the country and in the country multiple times with not only someone who has been arrested but with someone who was convicted of manufacturing mushrooms with intent to distribute. They have 2 felonies and are not on probation or parole. So, he is either not telling you the entire story, is just outright lying to you, or is ignorant in this matter.
I suggest to you to call his bluff and tell him you spoke with a criminal lawyer (Someone at work, a friend, a neighbor whatever) and they said there is no reason you can not fly if you are not on a do not fly list, probation, or parole. See what his reponse is, back him into a corner on the issue.
Illegal immigrants can still fly within the USA and tey do not get caught. All you need is an ID and an airline ticket that matches that ID. Well, you also need the will to go. But who am I... just another ignorant person on the internet maybe.
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
I have traveled out of the country and in the country multiple times with not only someone who has been arrested but with someone who was convicted of manufacturing mushrooms with intent to distribute. They have 2 felonies and are not on probation or parole. So, he is either not telling you the entire story, is just outright lying to you, or is ignorant in this matter.
I suggest to you to call his bluff and tell him you spoke with a criminal lawyer (Someone at work, a friend, a neighbor whatever) and they said there is no reason you can not fly if you are not on a do not fly list, probation, or parole. See what his reponse is, back him into a corner on the issue.
Illegal immigrants can still fly within the USA and tey do not get caught. All you need is an ID and an airline ticket that matches that ID. Well, you also need the will to go. But who am I... just another ignorant person on the internet maybe.
New contributor
I have traveled out of the country and in the country multiple times with not only someone who has been arrested but with someone who was convicted of manufacturing mushrooms with intent to distribute. They have 2 felonies and are not on probation or parole. So, he is either not telling you the entire story, is just outright lying to you, or is ignorant in this matter.
I suggest to you to call his bluff and tell him you spoke with a criminal lawyer (Someone at work, a friend, a neighbor whatever) and they said there is no reason you can not fly if you are not on a do not fly list, probation, or parole. See what his reponse is, back him into a corner on the issue.
Illegal immigrants can still fly within the USA and tey do not get caught. All you need is an ID and an airline ticket that matches that ID. Well, you also need the will to go. But who am I... just another ignorant person on the internet maybe.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 17 hours ago
Brént Russęll
411
411
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
C.K. Fortman is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
C.K. Fortman is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
C.K. Fortman is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
C.K. Fortman is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ftravel.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f125296%2fcan-a-person-be-banned-from-flying-within-the-u-s-if-he-has-a-criminal-record%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
12
You might get a more detailed legal analysis at Law.
– phoog
2 days ago
10
I just want to clarify does CA = California, not Canada or Central America? It seems to be so
– axsvl77
2 days ago
7
@axsvl77 that's a good question. I think "across the U.S." in the title can be taken as a clear indication that "CA" here means California.
– phoog
2 days ago
12
@axsvl77 Yeah, CA being both the state code for California and the country code for Canada does lead to some amusing situations. There's an Ontario in California, too, so I occasionally receive packages shipped from "Ontario, CA, USA," which makes it look like the U.S. annexed Canada.
– reirab
yesterday
2
@ESR and he says 'well those people on the internet are wrong, who do you trust, me or some internet randos?'. Now what? Still can't force him to fly.
– AakashM
yesterday