What about if: the police charged someone who got in a fight with their spouse, with "assault," spent the night in jail but the judge never charged them with anything the next morning and let them go? I know someone who wants to get a job at a mentor place assisting the disabled. As far as I know they just are there to keep an eye on them and assist them with things. They don't live there or perform any “nurse or doctor stuff.� So, an unlicensed helper? Im not sure of the correct word to use there. I know the job means a lot to them but the mentor place was telling them that initially they lied about it on their job application about not having any criminal background. But I was under the impression that if you never did any time or were convicted of anything that you didn't need to put down anything there. The person I know isn't bad they just got caught up in the heat of the moment and threw a bowl of noodles.

Hello p:

If you were NEVER charged, you have NO criminal record...

excon

I would wonder when this happened, if the person was let "out" with charges pending. Note that OP says the Police charged the person but the Judge did not.

... initially they lied about it on their job application about not having any criminal background. But I was under the impression that if you never did any time or were convicted of anything that you didn’t need to put down anything there. ...

Since this is about someone else, apparently you don't know all the facts. We don't know, for example, what the exact question on the employment application was. "Do you have any criminal background" would not be a very precise question. Usually the question would be "have you ever been convicted of a crime?". The answer to that question would be a "no". On the other hand, "have you ever been charged?" might require an affirmative answer: the act of holding the person overnight can be interpreted as being informally charged, with the "charges being dropped" before it went to court. Or "have you been ever arrested?" would clearly require a "yes" response.

A judge doesn't charge someone with a crime, a prosecutor (or, in this case possiby the police officer) does.

First if the police "charged ", then you have charges, and then you would appear in court at some point and time a few months latter.

But the thing is, you were most likely not charged, to be charged you would have received formal paper work or at least a ticket. ( which is a summons)

If you went before the judge the next morning, and was released ( that is first appearance) without charges then the judge found there was not enough evidence and dismissed any charges police had filed.

... If you went before the judge the next morning, and was released ( that is first appearance) without charges then the judge found there was not enough evidence and dismissed any charges police had filed.

Do you realize that there is an internal contradiction in this sentence? "... you... [were] "released ... without charges" then the judge... dismissed any charges... "?

It's a semantic issue, but I think that, if the OP were to bring charges for false arrest, the police's lawyer would argue that he had been informally "charged" with such-and-such and that these "charges" were dropped.