AUSA drug use question Forum

[Anonymous User]

Did not find this topic, sorry if dumb question. I tried pot once in my bar trip right after taking the bar but before being admitted to the state bar. When people say “post-bar” drug use as an auto dealbreaker for DOJ, does that refer to post bar exam or post admission to the state bar?

[Bingo_Bongo]

Did not find this topic, sorry if dumb question. I tried pot once in my bar trip right after taking the bar but before being admitted to the state bar. When people say “post-bar” drug use as an auto dealbreaker for DOJ, does that refer to post bar exam or post admission to the state bar?

I don't have any special knowledge about the current AUSA background check process, but I have been through very thorough background investigations as a prosecutor. Here are my thoughts:

There are rarely bright lines with these types of background investigations. There are also very few things that will automatically DQ you, and I doubt smoking weed once is one of them.

Practicing while high might be a different story, though. My background questionnaire for my current job asked if I ever worked as a law enforcement officer or prosecutor while under the influence of a drug or alcohol. If you were making court appearances under the influence, filing documents, negotiating, counseling clients, ect, that's concerning. I'm guessing that's probably what they're concerned with by drawing the line at "post-bar." I don't think "post-bar" is intended to serve as an arbitrary time cut-off (I mean what if you were admitted to practice in the 90s, tried pot once shortly thereafter, and want to be a Special AUSA now? That's going to be an automatic deal breaker? Really? What about some 24 year old who just got admitted to the bar, but was smoking every day in law school last year. He's fine?) but I could be wrong.

Does the EQUIP background paperwork say it's an auto DQ, or is it just random people on the internet saying that? Because I seriously doubt it would be an automatic DQ. This seems like something where the specific facts and circumstances would be important to the investigator.

[Anonymous User]

Did not find this topic, sorry if dumb question. I tried pot once in my bar trip right after taking the bar but before being admitted to the state bar. When people say “post-bar” drug use as an auto dealbreaker for DOJ, does that refer to post bar exam or post admission to the state bar?

I don't have any special knowledge about the current AUSA background check process, but I have been through very thorough background investigations as a prosecutor. Here are my thoughts:

There are rarely bright lines with these types of background investigations. There are also very few things that will automatically DQ you, and I doubt smoking weed once is one of them.

Practicing while high might be a different story, though. My background questionnaire for my current job asked if I ever worked as a law enforcement officer or prosecutor while under the influence of a drug or alcohol. If you were making court appearances under the influence, filing documents, negotiating, counseling clients, ect, that's concerning. I'm guessing that's probably what they're concerned with by drawing the line at "post-bar." I don't think "post-bar" is intended to serve as an arbitrary time cut-off (I mean what if you were admitted to practice in the 90s, tried pot once shortly thereafter, and want to be a Special AUSA now? That's going to be an automatic deal breaker? Really? What about some 24 year old who just got admitted to the bar, but was smoking every day in law school last year. He's fine?) but I could be wrong.

Does the EQUIP background paperwork say it's an auto DQ, or is it just random people on the internet saying that? Because I seriously doubt it would be an automatic DQ. This seems like something where the specific facts and circumstances would be important to the investigator.

It’s random people that say it’s an auto-DQ. I actually am going through the DOJ BI and have been told (by HR) that post-bar use does not automatically DQ you, especially if it was one time. I guess I’ll see if I’m cleared.

[Anonymous User]

I was told directly by a USAO I applied to that post-bar drug use was one of 2 auto dealbreakers (the other was either defaulting on student loans or not paying taxes, i forget but think the former). However I also applied through the honors program so was relatively recently barred, so it was a relevant question. The SF-86 form asks for illegal drug use in the last 7 years, so once you get past that time, it’s not going to matter whether you used pre-admission or post-admission; you won’t have to disclose either way (unless maybe a specific office has stricter disclosure requirements for whatever reason).

[Bingo_Bongo]

I was told directly by a USAO I applied to that post-bar drug use was one of 2 auto dealbreakers (the other was either defaulting on student loans or not paying taxes, i forget but think the former). However I also applied through the honors program so was relatively recently barred, so it was a relevant question. The SF-86 form asks for illegal drug use in the last 7 years, so once you get past that time, it’s not going to matter whether you used pre-admission or post-admission; you won’t have to disclose either way (unless maybe a specific office has stricter disclosure requirements for whatever reason).

See, to me it seems like they're primarily concerned with the timing, hence the 7 years limit. My feeling with the "post-bar" thing is that they're concerned with somebody practicing while possibly high.

But, I guess we'll see. Keep us updated OP. I'm actually curious about this.

[Anonymous User]

Are these questions regarding drug use simply “yes/no” on the application, or are AUSA candidates also subject to a polygraph test and/or a drug test (hair follicle?) that can trace drug use 5+ years?

[Anonymous User]

Are these questions regarding drug use simply “yes/no” on the application, or are AUSA candidates also subject to a polygraph test and/or a drug test (hair follicle?) that can trace drug use 5+ years?

If he purchased it at a legal dispensary, then his name may be on a list somewhere. Not sure, but I know where i live they do record your ID, (not sure what they do with that) so I would feel mildly uncomfortable lying about that since there may be a record (at least of purchase, if not of use). Otherwise, there was no polygraph and drug testing was urine only... not sure why you would feel the need to disclose one toke after a bar exam, unless you for some reason documented it .

[cavalier1138]

Are these questions regarding drug use simply “yes/no” on the application, or are AUSA candidates also subject to a polygraph test and/or a drug test (hair follicle?) that can trace drug use 5+ years?

If he purchased it at a legal dispensary, then his name may be on a list somewhere. Not sure, but I know where i live they do record your ID, (not sure what they do with that) so I would feel mildly uncomfortable lying about that since there may be a record (at least of purchase, if not of use). Otherwise, there was no polygraph and drug testing was urine only... not sure why you would feel the need to disclose one toke after a bar exam, unless you for some reason documented it .

On the other hand, USAOs should probably be staffed with people who default to ethical and honest behavior, like not lying about their drug use because they think it's ok when there's no polygraph test involved.

Also, unless you smoked weed a single time, alone, and never, ever told anyone, they're very likely to find out. The background check for these positions is much more thorough than what you're used to.

[Anonymous User]

I was told directly by a USAO I applied to that post-bar drug use was one of 2 auto dealbreakers (the other was either defaulting on student loans or not paying taxes, i forget but think the former). However I also applied through the honors program so was relatively recently barred, so it was a relevant question. The SF-86 form asks for illegal drug use in the last 7 years, so once you get past that time, it’s not going to matter whether you used pre-admission or post-admission; you won’t have to disclose either way (unless maybe a specific office has stricter disclosure requirements for whatever reason).

See, to me it seems like they're primarily concerned with the timing, hence the 7 years limit. My feeling with the "post-bar" thing is that they're concerned with somebody practicing while possibly high.

But, I guess we'll see. Keep us updated OP. I'm actually curious about this.

I mean yes, they’re doubtless concerned about timing. But the SF-86 is a standardized form used across the federal government and it specifically requires disclosing illegal drug use in the previous 7 years. If you get hired by a USAO when you’ve been practicing for 10 years, and you smoked weed during your first 2 years of practice, but then stopped forever, you wouldn’t have used in the previous 7 years, and you wouldn’t have to disclose anything. The form does not ask “have you used illegal drugs since getting admitted to the bar.” So I really don’t think it’s about “did you ever practice while high,” it is simply about the fact that using illegal drugs is inconsistent with enforcing drug laws and if you’ve done the one within a certain period you’re not considered suitable to do the other. The discussion of post-bar use for someone relatively recently admitted is more about drawing a distinction between college/law school use and use after you’ve entered the profession, not literally about have you ever practiced while high.

The drug test for USAOs is urine. (I think the Dept of State has all kinds of crazy requirements including a polygraph.) The form is available online and asks yes/no questions with explanations for yes answers, IIRC.

[Anonymous User]

Isolated post bar drug use may or may not be an automatic disqualifier. My understanding is that this depends on the discretion or policy of the Agency head or US Attorney you would ultimately report to. Even if it does disqualify you, it would only be so for the 7 year SF-86 reporting period.

On the other hand, lying is definitely an automatic disqualifier, and may disqualify you from federal service for life. It’s also a crime. Proceed accordingly.

Note, my perspective is that of a current federal agency attorney (not DOJ or USAO) that disclosed isolated post-bar pot use and was fine.

[Anonymous User]

One of my co-workers was given a tentative offer of employment for an AUSA position. He was six or seven years out of school at the time. He disclosed and he didn't pass the background check due to that post-bar marijuana use. Knowing him, I'm positive he didn't ever practice while under the influence ever. The USAO he applied to was in a state where marijuana is legal recreationally, and it was still enough to make him lose the job offer.

I've heard from multiple sources (not just online here) that post-bar drug use is almost always a dealbreaker, unless it's 5 to 7 years old, or more. As most people applying for AUSA jobs fall into that timeline, that's probably why the issue comes up frequently.

I wouldn't recommend not disclosing. It's not worth being charged for a crime. I'm not aware of any AUSA positions that require a polygraph, but if you ever end up in a position that requires a polygraph or clearance, you're going to have trouble when asked about lying on federal background checks previously.

[Anonymous User]

USAO and main justice must be different regarding post-bar drug use, then. Sounds like this deal-beaker is made at the local USAO level. Also, for those of you saying don’t disclose or don’t worry if it’s more than 7 years: there’s a DOJ specific form that both the USAOs and main justice use that specifically asks if you’ve ever used illegal drugs (including prescription drugs not prescribed to you). There’s only an option to mark yes or no. This is separate and apart from the SF86.

[Anonymous User]

USAO and main justice must be different regarding post-bar drug use, then. Sounds like this deal-beaker is made at the local USAO level. Also, for those of you saying don’t disclose or don’t worry if it’s more than 7 years: there’s a DOJ specific form that both the USAOs and main justice use that specifically asks if you’ve ever used illegal drugs (including prescription drugs not prescribed to you). There’s only an option to mark yes or no. This is separate and apart from the SF86.

Interesting. I'm the don't worry if over 7 years person. My USAO only required the SF86 - I didn’t have to answer the “have you ever” question.

[LBJ's Hair]

One of my co-workers was given a tentative offer of employment for an AUSA position. He was six or seven years out of school at the time. He disclosed and he didn't pass the background check due to that post-bar marijuana use. Knowing him, I'm positive he didn't ever practice while under the influence ever. The USAO he applied to was in a state where marijuana is legal recreationally, and it was still enough to make him lose the job offer.

I've heard from multiple sources (not just online here) that post-bar drug use is almost always a dealbreaker, unless it's 5 to 7 years old, or more. As most people applying for AUSA jobs fall into that timeline, that's probably why the issue comes up frequently.

I wouldn't recommend not disclosing. It's not worth being charged for a crime. I'm not aware of any AUSA positions that require a polygraph, but if you ever end up in a position that requires a polygraph or clearance, you're going to have trouble when asked about lying on federal background checks previously.

Lying is stupid and illegal, so don't do it. But honestly I wouldn't be worried about polygraphs, which are embarrassingly unreliable. More the background check. Like do you think a law school classmate will (falsely) tell the FBI that you didn't drugs in college if they call 'em up and ask? An old college acquaintance? Unlikely.

[Anonymous User]

I interviewed at a large, east coast USAO and they had a form with the "have you ever" question. I've interviewed at rural offices that didn't ask that question.

[m27]

One of my co-workers was given a tentative offer of employment for an AUSA position. He was six or seven years out of school at the time. He disclosed and he didn't pass the background check due to that post-bar marijuana use. Knowing him, I'm positive he didn't ever practice while under the influence ever. The USAO he applied to was in a state where marijuana is legal recreationally, and it was still enough to make him lose the job offer.

I've heard from multiple sources (not just online here) that post-bar drug use is almost always a dealbreaker, unless it's 5 to 7 years old, or more. As most people applying for AUSA jobs fall into that timeline, that's probably why the issue comes up frequently.

I wouldn't recommend not disclosing. It's not worth being charged for a crime. I'm not aware of any AUSA positions that require a polygraph, but if you ever end up in a position that requires a polygraph or clearance, you're going to have trouble when asked about lying on federal background checks previously.

Lying is stupid and illegal, so don't do it. But honestly I wouldn't be worried about polygraphs, which are embarrassingly unreliable. More the background check. Like do you think a law school classmate will (falsely) tell the FBI that you didn't drugs in college if they call 'em up and ask? An old college acquaintance? Unlikely.

This is a good point. Any insight into the depth and thoroughness of the interviewing of colleagues/friends/acquaintances? Obviously any references and former employers would be interviewed, but what would the circumstances be to lead an agent to interview an old college or law school acquaintence?

[Anonymous User]

The background check requires you to provide the names of at least one person who's known you at all the past addresses you report, and to provide personal references as well as employment references. The person doing the check *will* go interview them. A friend of mine from a previous graduate program got asked extensively about my travel in China (I've never been to China). They interviewed my husband (although amusingly we have different last names and were living in different cities b/c I was clerking and the interviewer didn't realize we were married till halfway through the conversation). They called my co-clerk (who was not listed as an employment contact). In another example, someone came from my law school to talk about work in Indian law for DOJ. He grew up on the rez and when he went through the background check he had a friend from home tell him, "The FBI called me about you! Don't worry, I told them I don't know you!" Also IIRC the interviewers are not limited to interviewing the people whose names you provide - in theory they can ask your references about other people to talk to (I don't think they'd do this without other red flags, but it's possible).

So sure, they might not talk to people who've seen you do drugs, but they also very well might. Personally, I found identifying enough personal references tough enough, and I didn't have to try to avoid anyone who's done drugs with me (I have a stupidly clean background). But YMMV.

[Anonymous User]

I can confirm that minimal post-bar drug use (i.e. drug use that would require you to check “yes” on form DOJ-54) does not automatically disqualify you from employment with the DOJ. Local USAOs may have additional requirements, but OARM isn’t going to auto-DQ you.

[Anonymous User]

The background check requires you to provide the names of at least one person who's known you at all the past addresses you report, and to provide personal references as well as employment references. The person doing the check *will* go interview them. A friend of mine from a previous graduate program got asked extensively about my travel in China (I've never been to China). They interviewed my husband (although amusingly we have different last names and were living in different cities b/c I was clerking and the interviewer didn't realize we were married till halfway through the conversation). They called my co-clerk (who was not listed as an employment contact). In another example, someone came from my law school to talk about work in Indian law for DOJ. He grew up on the rez and when he went through the background check he had a friend from home tell him, "The FBI called me about you! Don't worry, I told them I don't know you!" Also IIRC the interviewers are not limited to interviewing the people whose names you provide - in theory they can ask your references about other people to talk to (I don't think they'd do this without other red flags, but it's possible).

So sure, they might not talk to people who've seen you do drugs, but they also very well might. Personally, I found identifying enough personal references tough enough, and I didn't have to try to avoid anyone who's done drugs with me (I have a stupidly clean background). But YMMV.

I think most of this is usually true but not always. I’m an AUSA and went through the background check last year. There were tons of people they didn’t contact as far as that one person per city thing. They did go to my old form and interview people and go through personnel files and I think each of my “personal references”. But they didn’t hit up my neighbors and the like. Not really that relevant but just a counterpoint. I will also say that multiple people have fallen out of background in my office recently. No clue why but was a little shocked. I wasn’t squeaky clean. But no post-bar drug use — though they didn’t really interrogate about that.

[Anonymous User]

Reviving this thread with a somewhat different question -- does anyone have any insight as to what impact (if any) the regular drug use of a significant other that I live with might have? I get that all else equal, it's probably cleaner for background check purposes that nobody in the household use drugs. But absent that, any insights would be appreciated.

[Anonymous User]

I’ve honestly never heard this come up. I think that interviewers are pretty much limited to asking your SO about you, not about themselves (because then you get into self-incrimination issues and your references haven’t signed away their right to privacy on these things).

I suppose the SO could say something about you like “they’re a total straight edge, they never join in when I’m smoking pot/doing meth,” but I don’t think DOJ can take into account the habits of people you live with, unless those habits somehow suggest that you’re lying about your own use. They might be more likely to dig further into your own use, but I can’t see them holding your partner’s use against you.

If you stretch everything as far as possible, I suppose if your partner is obviously in the throes of a serious debilitating addiction, there *might possibly* be a concern that it could affect your finances and make your more susceptible to bribery (I can’t imagine anyone wanting to bribe me but that is one of the concerns behind checking out your finances, for instance) or could affect your mental health. But that seems like a HUGE stretch to me and would require actual evidence of that level of drug use and consequent financial or mental health issues already causing problems. It’s not plausible to me.

If it’s just that your partner smokes weed regularly, yeah, it’s probably better not to smoke during the interview or to make a point of bringing it up, but I have a hard time seeing it be a problem. They’re investigating you, not your SO, because your SO isn’t going to do the job.

[NoLongerALurker]

The background check requires you to provide the names of at least one person who's known you at all the past addresses you report, and to provide personal references as well as employment references. The person doing the check *will* go interview them. A friend of mine from a previous graduate program got asked extensively about my travel in China (I've never been to China). They interviewed my husband (although amusingly we have different last names and were living in different cities b/c I was clerking and the interviewer didn't realize we were married till halfway through the conversation). They called my co-clerk (who was not listed as an employment contact). In another example, someone came from my law school to talk about work in Indian law for DOJ. He grew up on the rez and when he went through the background check he had a friend from home tell him, "The FBI called me about you! Don't worry, I told them I don't know you!" Also IIRC the interviewers are not limited to interviewing the people whose names you provide - in theory they can ask your references about other people to talk to (I don't think they'd do this without other red flags, but it's possible).

So sure, they might not talk to people who've seen you do drugs, but they also very well might. Personally, I found identifying enough personal references tough enough, and I didn't have to try to avoid anyone who's done drugs with me (I have a stupidly clean background). But YMMV.

I never applied for a job requiring a background check, but my law school roommate did recently. I only know this because last year (several years after graduating) the FBI called me, asked me to confirm I lived with the guy, then their only question was for names of other people who I knew who knew him at the same time. So I’m assuming they were doing exactly as you described re asking for other contacts.

[Anonymous User]

Reviving this thread with a somewhat different question -- does anyone have any insight as to what impact (if any) the regular drug use of a significant other that I live with might have? I get that all else equal, it's probably cleaner for background check purposes that nobody in the household use drugs. But absent that, any insights would be appreciated.

I had a similar issue addressed in a position requiring an SF86 (not DOJ), and the question was, if I go to a party where people are doing drugs, but I don't do any drugs, will that be an issue? And the answer was - we don't expect you to call the police if you encounter criminal behavior in that context, but your being in an environment where criminal behavior is occurring would absolutely be an issue, so you should just leave the party and not put yourself in that position again. The idea being that your judgment is questionable if you regularly put yourself in situations where a criminal act is occurring and you do nothing. So I would imagine the ongoing and regular criminal behavior of your significant other would cause a problem were they to find out about it. Will they find out about it? Probably not, but they very well might. How? Someone they talk to might casually mention it (people say ridiculous things when they're talking to the authorities).

[Anonymous User]

The idea that smoking weed after one is barred suggests you might practice law while high is silly. But then so is this entire process. Smoked weed a few times 6.5 years ago? Sorry, you're morally bankrupt. We're gonna hire the candidate who smoked it 7 years ago.

[Anonymous User]

The idea that smoking weed after one is barred suggests you might practice law while high is silly. But then so is this entire process. Smoked weed a few times 6.5 years ago? Sorry, you're morally bankrupt. We're gonna hire the candidate who smoked it 7 years ago.

Pretty sure no one here is actually advocating for the federal policy, just trying to figure it out and help others figure it out. So not sure what point this post is trying to make.

(FWIW though, the issue isn’t that oh no! you might practice law while high!, it’s that you’re applying for a job enforcing federal law at the same time that you’ve broken federal law, which goes to the concern that the post above yours raises about you being places where federal law is being broken without doing anything. Still probably not a convincing policy when applied to weed, but it’s a tiny bit less silly than the (non-existent) fear that you’ll practice while high.)