Disclosure of Drug Use on AUSA Application Forum

[Anonymous User]

I was told that, on the AUSA application, you only have to disclose use of illegal drugs in the last seven (7) years. Can anyone confirm that this is correct? Thank you!

[Anonymous User]

I was told that, on the AUSA application, you only have to disclose use of illegal drugs in the last seven (7) years. Can anyone confirm that this is correct? Thank you!

Yes the SF86 only asks for last seven years. However, if you answer yes, you will have to answer about lifetime use. I went through this and disclosed MJ use that was relatively recent (but before being barred) and it was relatively painless. I ended up receiving a clearance without a problem, though with some heart burn.

[Dcc617]

I hate these threads, since you’re going to be putting people in prison for something you have done, probably many times.

[Anonymous User]

.

[Anonymous User]

I hate these threads, since you’re going to be putting people in prison for something you have done, probably many times.

Nobody gets prosecuted, let alone goes to federal prison, for pure possession nowadays. It’s always gun charges and/or distribution.

[Anonymous User]

I hate these threads, since you’re going to be putting people in prison for something you have done, probably many times.

Nobody gets prosecuted, let alone goes to federal prison, for pure possession nowadays. It’s always gun charges and/or distribution.

This is just another way of saying that people do go to prison for possession and therefore for something that the prospective AUSA has also done.

[Anonymous User]

I hate these threads, since you’re going to be putting people in prison for something you have done, probably many times.

Nobody gets prosecuted, let alone goes to federal prison, for pure possession nowadays. It’s always gun charges and/or distribution.

This is just another way of saying that people do go to prison for possession and therefore for something that the prospective AUSA has also done.

Having a large amount of fentanyl is not remotely similar to having weed for personal consumption. These threads always devolve into high horsery from abolitionists and it's nuts. I'd much rather have the local AUSA smoke weed than be stone cold sober, what say you?

[Anonymous User]

I hate these threads, since you’re going to be putting people in prison for something you have done, probably many times.

Nobody gets prosecuted, let alone goes to federal prison, for pure possession nowadays. It’s always gun charges and/or distribution.

This is just another way of saying that people do go to prison for possession and therefore for something that the prospective AUSA has also done.

Even on its own terms this doesn’t make sense. You can reasonably oppose 924(c), which is regularly enforced, a la the Bronx Defenders’ pro-gun brief, but it isn’t the same thing as possession.

[Anonymous User]

I hate these threads, since you’re going to be putting people in prison for something you have done, probably many times.

Nobody gets prosecuted, let alone goes to federal prison, for pure possession nowadays. It’s always gun charges and/or distribution.

This is just another way of saying that people do go to prison for possession and therefore for something that the prospective AUSA has also done.

Not unless the AUSA has possessed distribution level amounts of something other than weed, with or without possessing a gun.

If your point is that for an AUSA to have used drugs, they got them from somewhere, which is distribution, fair enough. But I’d have also thought that someone who’s anti-prosecutors would also be supportive of the idea that people change and shouldn’t be judged by something they did once in their past.

[Anonymous User]

OP didn't specify the drug. For all we know OP is a heavy user of black tar heroine and has deep ties to the Latin American gangs.

[Anonymous User]

I hate these threads, since you’re going to be putting people in prison for something you have done, probably many times.

Nobody gets prosecuted, let alone goes to federal prison, for pure possession nowadays. It’s always gun charges and/or distribution.

This is just another way of saying that people do go to prison for possession and therefore for something that the prospective AUSA has also done.

I think the reality here is that a larger and larger portion of the population has smoked MJ, which also correlates with the legalization of MJ by states. The federal government’s position is that it’s federally illegally, but it seems unfair to expect those who live in states where it is legal (on the state level) to completely abstain (especially at a time in their life when they may not have known they wanted to be an AUSA). I think it’s fair to ask whether it’s appropriate to prosecute someone for something you have done. But as another poster mentioned, no one is getting prosecuted for possession and certainly not in states where it’s legal.

I also do want to point out that not all AUSAs prosecute drug crimes.

[Anonymous User]

I also do want to point out that not all AUSAs prosecute drug crimes.

This is true, but (and I say this as an AUSA), AUSAs represent the government, and the government prosecutes drug crimes. If you (as a hypothetical AUSA, not you the anon poster) are comfortable splitting the difference whereby dcc’s original criticism doesn’t apply to you because you’re not prosecuting people for stuff that you’ve done, that’s cool, but you’re absolutely part of the machine than enforces drug cases and you doing other kinds of cases supports the office in prosecuting drug cases.

[Anonymous User]

I also do want to point out that not all AUSAs prosecute drug crimes.

This is true, but (and I say this as an AUSA), AUSAs represent the government, and the government prosecutes drug crimes. If you (as a hypothetical AUSA, not you the anon poster) are comfortable splitting the difference whereby dcc’s original criticism doesn’t apply to you because you’re not prosecuting people for stuff that you’ve done, that’s cool, but you’re absolutely part of the machine than enforces drug cases and you doing other kinds of cases supports the office in prosecuting drug cases.

I'm only familiar with EDNY/SDNY but my understanding is that they start all first year AUSAs on drug crimes.

[Anonymous User]

AUSA background checks are tier 5 single scope investigations. The DOD publishes admin law appeals of denials, and the security clearance Reddit has good info.

[GFox345]

I hate these threads, since you’re going to be putting people in prison for something you have done, probably many times.

Yes, I also hate these threads and this same tired, garbage take. Of course respond entirely truthfully to all questions on AUSA application. That goes without saying.

But the broader unworthiness point is just trash. The Feds literally NEVER bring federal prosecutions based on personal use of marijuana, unless you keep kilos for personal use with intent to distribute it. And even if they did, I just don't get the argument that you can never have done wrong yourself EVER IN YOUR LIFE if you want to get a job helping enforce the law. Like, one puff from a joint in college and boom, you're impure for life and can't help take down wire fraud/kiddie porn rings. It's bizarre.

There are ten thousand federal crimes. Your argument is that if you've ever engaged in conduct that might violate one of them at some point in your life (even decades ago), you are unworthy of ever working in law enforcement?

I mean, do you think Bill Clinton/Barack Obama should have been disqualified from being President (from whom authority to prosecute federal offenses derives) because they admitted to using federally illegal drugs at some point in their life?

[Anonymous User]

I also do want to point out that not all AUSAs prosecute drug crimes.

This is true, but (and I say this as an AUSA), AUSAs represent the government, and the government prosecutes drug crimes. If you (as a hypothetical AUSA, not you the anon poster) are comfortable splitting the difference whereby dcc’s original criticism doesn’t apply to you because you’re not prosecuting people for stuff that you’ve done, that’s cool, but you’re absolutely part of the machine than enforces drug cases and you doing other kinds of cases supports the office in prosecuting drug cases.

I'm only familiar with EDNY/SDNY but my understanding is that they start all first year AUSAs on drug crimes.

Yes, I agree that in practice, it’s going to be very hard to avoid drug crimes in any office. My point was just that even if you could, it doesn’t really address the original criticism (which, to be clear, I don’t agree with).

[Anonymous User]

I also do want to point out that not all AUSAs prosecute drug crimes.

This is true, but (and I say this as an AUSA), AUSAs represent the government, and the government prosecutes drug crimes. If you (as a hypothetical AUSA, not you the anon poster) are comfortable splitting the difference whereby dcc’s original criticism doesn’t apply to you because you’re not prosecuting people for stuff that you’ve done, that’s cool, but you’re absolutely part of the machine than enforces drug cases and you doing other kinds of cases supports the office in prosecuting drug cases.

I'm only familiar with EDNY/SDNY but my understanding is that they start all first year AUSAs on drug crimes.

Yes, I agree that in practice, it’s going to be very hard to avoid drug crimes in any office. My point was just that even if you could, it doesn’t really address the original criticism (which, to be clear, I don’t agree with).

Person you were replying to. To clarify I wasn't like refuting you just kind of adding on, that this person is almost certaintly going to prosecute drug crimes.