The Background Investigator January 2012 edition

By Michael Liedtke

A clerical error landed Kathleen Casey on the streets. Out of work two years, her unemploy-ment benefits exhausted, in danger of losing her apartment, Casey applied for a job in the pharmacy of a Boston drug-store. She was offered $11 an hour. All she had to do was pass a background check. It turned up a 14-count criminal in-dictment. Kathleen Casey had been charged with larceny in a scam against an elderly man and woman that in-volved forged checks and fake credit cards. There was one technicality: The com-pany that ran the background check, First Advantage, had the wrong woman. The rap sheet belonged to Kathleen A. Casey,

By Steven Brownstein CBS got it wrong. That's after AP got it wrong. Maybe There Ought To Be A Correction.

Volume 12 Number 1 January 2012

PRSRT STD

U.S. POSTAGE PAID

PERMIT NO. 164 MORTONGROVE, IL

Skokie, Illinois USA Courthouse Photograph by Steven Brownstein

Article continues on page 2

Complete List on Page 12

St. Thomas, St.Croix, St. John

Book 128a (Jan 2012) page 1

Friday, December 30, 2011 07:33 Composite

who lived in another town nearby and was 18 years younger. Kathleen Ann Casey, would-be pharmacy techni-cian, was clean. "It knocked my legs out from under me," she says. The business of back-ground checks is booming. Employers spend at least $2 billion a year to look into the pasts of their prospec-tive employees. They want to make sure they're not hiring a thief, or worse. But it is a system weak-ened by the conversion to digital files and compro-mised by the welter of pri-vate companies that profit by amassing public records and selling them to employ-ers. These flaws have dev-astating consequences. It is a system in which the most sensitive information

from people's pasts is bought and sold as a com-modity. A system in which com-puters scrape the public files of court systems around the country to re-trieve personal data. But a system in which what they retrieve isn't checked for errors that would be obvi-ous to human eyes. A system that can damage reputations and, in a time of precious few job opportuni-ties, rob honest workers of a chance at a new start. And a system that can leave the Kathleen Caseys of the world — the innocent ones — living in a car. Those are the results of an investigation by The Asso-ciated Press that included a review of thousands of pages of court filings and interviews with dozens of court officials, data provid-ers, lawyers, victims and regulators. "It's an entirely new fron-tier," says Leonard Bennett, a Virginia lawyer who has represented hundreds of plaintiffs alleging they were the victims of inaccu-

rate background checks. "They're making it up as they go along." Two decades ago, if a county wanted to update someone's criminal record, a clerk had to put a piece of paper in a file. And if you wanted to read about some-one's criminal past, you had to walk into a courthouse and thumb through it. To-day, half the courts in the United States put criminal records on their public websites. Digitization was supposed to make criminal records easier to access and easier to update. To protect pri-vacy, laws were passed re-quiring courts to redact some information, such as birth dates and Social Secu-rity numbers, before they put records online. But dig-itization perpetuates errors. "There's very little human judgment," says Sharon Dietrich, an attorney with Community Legal Services in Philadelphia, a law firm focused on poorer clients. Dietrich represents victims of inaccurate background checks. "They don't seem to have much incentive to get it right."

Dietrich says her firm fields about twice as many complaints about inaccurate background checks as it did five years ago. The mix-ups can start with a mistake entered into the logs of a law enforcement agency or a court file. The biggest culprits, though, are companies that compile databases using public in-formation. In some instances, their automated formulas misin-terpret the information pro-vided them. Other times, as Casey discovered, records wind up assigned to the wrong people with a com-mon name. Another common problem: When a government agency erases a criminal conviction after a designated period of good behavior, many of the commercial databases don't perform the updates re-quired to purge offenses that have been wiped out from public record. It hasn't helped that doz-ens of databases are now run by mom-and-pop busi-nesses with limited re-sources to monitor the ac-curacy of the records. The industry of providing background checks has been growing to meet the rising demand for the ser-vice. In the 1990s, about half of employers said they checked backgrounds. In the decade since Sept. 11,

that figure has grown to more than 90 percent, ac-cording to the Society for Human Resource Manage-ment. To take advantage of the growing number of busi-nesses willing to pay for background checks, hun-dreds of companies have dispatched computer pro-grams to scour the Internet for free court data. But those data do not al-ways tell the full story. Gina Marie Haynes had just moved from Philadel-phia to Texas with her boy-friend in August 2010 and lined up a job managing apartments. A background check found fraud charges, and Haynes lost the offer. A year earlier, she had bought a used Saab, and the day she drove it off the lot, smoke started pouring from the hood. The dealer charged $291.48 for re-pairs. When Haynes re-fused to pay, the dealer filed fraud charges. Haynes relented and paid after six months. Anyone looking at Haynes' physical file at the courthouse in Montgomery County, Pa., would have seen that the fraud charge had been re-moved. But it was still listed in the limited infor-mation on the court's web-site. The website has since been updated, but Haynes, 40, has no idea

PUBLISHER Steven Brownstein CONTRIBUTORS: Mike Sankey, Les Rosen, Dennis Brownstein, Faheem Ebrahim COVER PHOTOGRAPH: Skokie, Illinois USA Court COVER PHOTOGRAPHER: Steven Brownstein PURPOSE: “Dedicated to pre-employment screenings everywhere” The Background Investigator is published by Steven Brownstein, LLC, PMB 1007, Box 10001, Saipan, MP 96950. Phone: 670-256-7000. Copyright 2011 by Steven Brownstein. Some material in this publication must not be repro-duced by any method without the written permission of the copyright holder.

When Their Criminal Past Isn't Theirs, Continued from page 1

Big Story continues



how many companies downloaded the outdated data. She has spent hours calling background check companies to see whether she is in their databases. Getting the information re-moved and corrected from so many different databases can be a daunting mission. Even if it's right in one place, it can be wrong in another database unknown to an individual until a pro-spective employer requests information from it. By then, the damage is done. "I want my life back," Haynes says. Haynes has since found work as a customer service manager, but she says that is only because her latest employer didn't run a back-ground check. Hard data on errors in background checks are not public. Most leading back-ground check companies contacted by the AP would not disclose how many of their records need to be corrected each year. A recent class-action set-tlement with one major da-tabase company, HireRight Solutions Inc., provides a glimpse at the magnitude of the problems. The settlement, which re-ceived tentative approval from a federal judge in Vir-ginia last month, requires HireRight to pay $28.4 mil-lion to settle allegations that it didn't properly notify people about background checks and didn't properly respond to complaints about inaccurate files. After covering attorney fees of up to $9.4 million, the fund will be dispersed among nearly 700,000 people for alleged violations that oc-curred from 2004 to 2010. Individual payments will range from $15 to $20,000.

In an effort to prevent bad information from being spread, some courts are try-ing to block the computer programs that background check companies deploy to scrape data off court web-sites. The programs not only can misrepresent the official court record but can also hog network resources, bringing websites to a halt. Virginia, Arizona and New Mexico have installed security software to block automated programs from getting to their courts' sites. New Mexico's site was once slowed so much by automated data-mining pro-grams that it took minutes for anyone else to complete a basic search. Since New Mexico blocked the data miners, it now takes sec-

onds. In the digital age, some states have seen an oppor-tunity to cash in by selling their data to companies. Arizona charges $3,000 per year for a bundle of discs containing all its criminal files. The data includes per-sonal identifiers that aren't on the website, including driver's license numbers and partial Social Security numbers. Other states, exasperated by mounting errors in the data, have stopped offering wholesale subscriptions to their records. North Carolina, a pioneer in marketing electronic criminal records, made $4

million selling the data last year. But officials discov-ered that some background check companies were re-fusing to fix errors pointed out by the state or to update stale information. State officials say some companies paid $5,105 for the database but refused to pay a mandatory $370 monthly fee for daily up-dates to the files — or they would pay the fee but fail to run the update. The up-dates provided critical fixes, such as correcting misspelled names or delet-ing expunged cases. North Carolina, which has been among the most ag-gressive in ferreting out errors in its customers' files, stopped selling its

criminal records in bulk. It has moved to a system of selling records one at a time. By switching to a more methodical approach, North Carolina hopes to eliminate the sloppy re-cord-keeping practices that has emerged as more com-panies have been allowed to vacuum up massive amounts of data in a single sweep. Virginia ended its sub-scription program. To get full court files now, you have to go to the court-house in person. You can get abstracts online, but they lack Social Security numbers and birth dates, and are basically useless for a serious search. North Carolina told the AP that taxpayers have been "absorbing the expense and ill will generated by the members of the commercial data industry who continue to provide bad information while falsely attributing it to our courts' records." North Carolina identified some companies misusing the records, but other cul-prits have gone undetected because the data was resold multiple times.

Story continues page 21




Alberta Nova Scotia

British Columbia Ontario

Manitoba Prince Edward Islands

New Brunswick Quebec

New Foundland Saskatchewan

Northwest Territories Yukon Territories

POINT TO POINT SERVICE

XR2 Criminal Search PUERTO RICO

The ‘XR2’ Puerto Rico search is your insurance that you are getting the best possible results. It is proven that police searches in Puerto Rico can contain more than 50% more missed hits than the XR2. The XR2 signifies a new plateau of search re-sults never before heard of. And no one else but Straightline offers the XR2. or anything similar. Shouldn’t you be offering your clients the best?

Call 1-866-909-6678 Or Fax 1-866-909-6679

Straightline International

Background Check Filipino

Health Care Workers

The Philippines is one of the world’s largest exporters of health workers, making this one of the country’s

most important exports. Know who you are hiring before they start.

Straightline International's local staff provides complete background searches plus ALL public records in the Philippines.

Ask About Our “No Delay” Philippines

Service

Call 1-866-909-6678 Or Fax 1-866-909-6679

[email protected] Straightline International

Shortest distance between you and the courts



The Public Record Update

News From Courts

Hawaii Hawaii recently upgraded the electronic access to the state's Circuit Court records though Ho'ohiki. Users of the system had been experiencing excessive waits and de-lays. The Judiciairy added additional slots which should alleviate much of the wait time. The long term plan is to replace Ho'ohiki with a new platform for Circuit Court information on the state's Judiciary Information Management System. However, be aware there are gaps in time periods Ho'ohiki, depending on the Dis-trict. Also, these records are not considered "official" - there is a strong disclaimer at the site. It is advised to use caution if this site is the only source for FCRA compli-ant searches. See www.courts.state.hi.us/legal_references/records/search_court_records.html Nebraska The ability to electronically file probate case in any of the 93 counties has been added to the Nebraska Judicial eFiling system. This includes cases involving estates, guardianships, conservatorships, and trusts. Civil, criminal and juvenile case types are already part of eFiling. See www.supremecourt.ne.gov/court-information-tech/e-filing.shtml Oklahoma The Oklahoma Supreme Court has modified an earlier position and has determined that the filing of court documents should include the full date of birth and the full DOB should not be excluded from public documents. An earlier decision would have limited the disclosure of this identifier. The Judiciary is in the process of developing a single statewide court database sys-tem. Eventually the public will have access to case information from all of the 77 county courts on one platform. Currently there are two systems that together provide case information online from 76 counties. At present, records from Cimarron County are not on either system. For more information on the systems visit www.oscn.net. Wisconsin The Wisconsin Circuit Court Access system (WCCA) is a very popular public online access mode for case and docket information. One of the drawbacks to the system is the lack of records from Portage county. Recently the WCAA announced the addition of Portage court records dating back 25 years. However, users should be aware this case information will not show up on the WCCA for several more months. The data is being slowly added while being checked for completeness and accuracy. A statewide WI check should still include an onsite search in Portage for the next several months. WCAA is accessible at http://wcca.wicourts.gov/index.xsl.

We welcome your comments and observations about The Public Record Update Please address your comments to Michael Sankey at [email protected] Making copies of any part of the Public Record Update© for any purpose other than your own personal use is prohibited unless written authorization is ob-tained from BRB Publications. Phone - 480-829-7475 Public Record Retriever Network - www.prrn.us The CRA Help Desk - www.CRAHelpDesk.com BRB's Free Public Record Resource Center - www.brbpublications.com/pubrecsites.asp Motor Vehicle Record Decoder - www.mvrdecoder.com BRB's Public Record Blog - www.publicrecordsblog.net BRB's Bookstore - www.brbpublications.com/books BRB's Public Record Blog - www.publicrecordsblog.net

These Small Ads Are Affordable

SAIPAN –GUAM Criminal Research

Call 1-866-909-6678 Or Fax 1-866-909-6679

Straightline International Micronesia



Jury Awards 7 Million Dollars to Family of Truck Driver Killed in Acci-dent in Negligent Hiring Case The family of a truck driver killed in a 2008 acci-dent in Arkansas was re-cently awarded $7 million in damages in a wrongful death lawsuit brought against a timber company and its truck driver in an Arkansas Federal Court, according to a press release

in the Kansas City Star. A group of Kansas City-area lawyers serving as counsel for the family of the man killed in the accident ar-gued that the timber com-pany had negligently hired the truck driver who caused the accident without con-ducting a basic background search that would have quickly revealed a history of unsafe driving that in-cluded having his license revoked twice. According to the press release, the case primarily involved the timber com-pany truck driver's qualifi-cations to drive a commer-cial vehicle and the timber company's failure to appro-priately screen its drivers. Evidence was introduced at the trial that the timber company truck driver never should have been permitted to drive a tractor trailer since he had lied on his ap-plication and had received two license revocations, previous infractions that the timber company could have easily discovered with a simple background search that took only 15 minutes and cost $15. The deadly crash occurred only 19 days after the truck driver was negligently hired by the timber company for the driving job.

The victim was killed when the timber company truck driver's trailer went across the center line while taking a curve in the road-way and clipped another vehicle, causing the tractor to cross the center line and strike another car head on and veer directly into the cab of the semi-truck driven by the victim, who died from his injuries an hour after the collision. The jury returned a unanimous verdict that awarded $7 million to the victim's fam-ily and found the timber company 75 percent liable and its driver 25 percent liable. "Background checks are a necessary step in avoiding negligent hiring," says At-torney Les Rosen, the foun-der and CEO of Employ-ment Screening Resources (ESR) and author of 'The Safe Hiring Manual,' a comprehensive guide to background screening. "Even after the most dili-gent candidate selection process, hiring someone without conducting a thor-ough background check can lead to major legal and fi-nancial ramifications for your company. If your new hire is dishonest about his or her education, employ-ment or criminal history, you could face the burden of having an unqualified worker wasting time and resources or even having a violent employee in your office."

Health Care Facilities Workplace Violence Prevention Act Introduced in Pennsylvania To promote a "culture of safety" in health care facili-ties and help protect health care workers from incidents of workplace violence in the state of Pennsylvania,

the 'Health Care Facilities Workplace Violence Pre-vention Act' (House Bill 1992) was recently intro-duced in the Pennsylvania House, according to a re-port from HealthCa-nal.com. HB 1992 - a joint effort by the Pennsylvania Association of Staff Nurses and Allied Professionals (PASNAP) and State Rep-resentative Nicholas Mi-cozzie (R-163) - requires Pennsylvania hospitals and other health care facilities to take steps to protect health care workers from suffering from workplace violence that include secu-rity risks assessments, find-ing ways to create a safer workplace, and helping workplace violence victims report incidents. Specifically, the 'Health Care Facilities Workplace Violence Prevention Act' would provide for "violence prevention com-mittees" in health care fa-cilities, for their powers and duties, and for reme-dies. HB 1992 helps health care facilities develop a plan addressing risk factors, train security personnel, build staffing, and create a hospital "culture of safety." The full text of Pennsyl-vania House Bill 1992 (HB 1992) the 'Health Care Fa-cilities Workplace Violence Prevention Act' is available at http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=PDF&sessYr=2011&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=1992&pn=2761. According to the text, "this act shall take effect in 180 days."

Here’s Why Straightline Mainly Uses The Courts? Read This: Fresh concerns have emerged over the State Government's ability to vet staff after revelations that a

third public servant with a criminal history has been discovered this year. Just days after revealing a man who allegedly embez-zled $16 million from Queensland Health had a criminal history in New Zealand, it was learnt that Corrective Services has hired a prison guard con-victed of drug and weapon offences. The guard was handed a job because a person ticked a wrong box during the check process. Jennifer Dann was em-ployed full-time by Queen-sland Corrective Services in July and worked at the Brisbane and Woodford correctional centres. Dann was sacked three months later but only after concerns from an outsider were raised that a woman with her criminal history would be allowed to guard prisoners. This follows a blunder in March when a Croatian man on Interpol's most wanted list was discovered working as a state govern-ment security guard after 18 months patrolling the executive building and courts. The Government does not undertake its own criminal checks, rather it sends names of applicants to the Queensland Police Service, which runs them through the national criminal data-base Crimtrac. The infor-mation is returned to the departments for their as-sessment. According to court re-cords, Dann has a convic-tion recorded at Caboolture Magistrates Court in 2000 for possession of a danger-ous drug and weapon as well as secure storage of a weapon.

Les Rosen’s Corner

A monthly column By Lester Rosen, Attorney at Law

Continues on next pagr



Acting Corrective Services Commissioner Marlene Morrison acknowledged the error and said the check did pick up her history and her job application was re-jected. However, an admin-istrative error resulted in Dann's employment after she sought a review. Ms Morrison said Dann worked full-time at Bris-bane Correctional Centre and Woodfood Correctional Centre for three months but was sacked the day after they found out.

"A review of the criminal history checking estab-lished that an administra-tion officer mistakenly ticked the incorrect box on a form,'' she said. Ms Morrison said there was no evidence of impro-priety during Dann's tenure, but did not say if other peo-ple with criminal histories had been employed as prison guards. In similar circumstances, the Department of Public Works only became aware of the past of security guard Marino Katalinic, 36, after he held his job for 18 months. He was sacked on May 31 this year after he was found guilty of impersonating a

police officer and The Cou-rier-Mail revealed he was wanted by Croatian au-thorities over drug and theft convictions from 2004. Responding to the Gov-ernment's failure to pick up on Morehu-Barlow's crimi-nal history, Police and Cor-rective Services Minister Neil Roberts this week ac-knowledged flaws with the system. The three cases raise seri-ous questions about the State Government's han-dling of employees' crimi-nal checks. The latest revelations come as three senior health managers were stood down on full pay by Queensland Health yesterday pending

an investigation into the failure to detect the illegal transfer of millions of dol-lars. But the decision sparked fresh calls for Health Min-ister Geoff Wilson to be sacked as the Opposition insisted the Bligh Govern-ment had a long record of blaming only bureaucrats. Police have charged Bris-bane socialite and Health purchasing officer Joel Morehu-Barlow with one count of defrauding the de-partment of $11 million. An investigation last year cleared him of any wrong-doing despite a detailed complaint, while payments of $4 million to a trading entity set up by Morehu-

Barlow are outlined in the department's annual re-ports. Editor’s Notes The article, “Why Straightline Uses The Courts” doesn’t do justice to explain the errors and omissions of local, state, and federal level police re-cords and their databases. Last year, Straightline tested thousands of searches with both the court and police records. The closet study of this nature was performed in the late 90’s by the State of Florida comparing name only checks to fingerprint ID checks. All of us who were around then remember the results. Our industriy’s term, ‘false positive, came as a result of that study. But what we resulted in our test result was unex-pected and stunning. Do not bank on getting as many hits or any hits at all using police databases on a name check basis. The hit ratio from the court far exceeded the one from the state police by up to 50%. The test results are avail-able for those serious about criminal records. Contact Dennis Brownstein at 1-866-909-6678

Why Straightline Mainly Uses The Courts, continued from pg7



Understanding Ohio’s Case Numbering System The three letter prefix indicates what type of case it is. Below is a listing of the case categories: Criminal/Traffic Division CRA - Felony CRB - Misdemeanor

TRC - DUI TRD - All other traffic vio-lations Civil Division CVE - Damage to person and/or property CVF - Monetary damages CVG - Eviction CVH - Replevin CVI - Small Claims CVJ - Rent Escrow CVK - Drivers license ap-peals MCT - Court transfers to collect judgment in a differ-

ent jurisdiction - as of 2000, all MCT cases are given the designation of CVH. On criminal and traffic cases, you will notice a four (4) digit suffix indicating the number of charges in the case. All Criminal/Traffic cases are given the suffix "0101" which means "one of one". When more than one charge is filed simultane-ously, the case numbers increase to the number of counts you are cited. The case numbers given are then put in order of se-verity. For example, if you are stopped by a police officer and cited for going 10 miles over the speed limit and not having a valid driv-ers license, your case num-bers would be similar to the following: no valid drivers license TRD-99-12345-0102 speeding TRD-99-12345-0202

Are Printers An Open Invitation To Steal? Special news Columbia University re-searchers have found a new class of computer security flaws involving printers that could impact millions of businesses, consumers, and government agencies. The researchers say that certain Hewlett-Packard (HP) LaserJet printers can be remotely controlled over the Internet, enabling com-puter hackers to steal per-sonal information, attack normally secure networks, and cause physical damage to hardware. HP's Keith Moore says the initial research suggests the likelihood that the vulner-ability can be exploited in the real world is low. However, the Columbia researchers claim the secu-rity vulnerability is so fun-damental that it could affect tens of millions of printers and other hardware that use flawed firmware. The firmware flaw runs embedded systems such as computer printers, which increasingly include func-

tions that make them oper-ate more like computers. "These devices are com-pletely open and available to be exploited," says Co-lumbia professor Salvatore Stolfo. For example, the research-ers showed how a hijacked computer could be given a command to continuously heat up the printer's fuser, eventually causing the pa-per to turn brown and smoke. The researchers also found that printers auto-matically accept software updates from unknown sources, making them vul-nerable to viruses that can be remotely installed.

UK’s Definition Of Hireability Undergoing Changes The UK government is considering widening the definition of a criminal re-cord when employers de-cide on a person's suitabil-ity to work with children. In a review into criminal records and vetting and bar-ring procedures, the gov-ernment’s independent ad-viser on criminality infor-mation management Sunita Mason wants to widen the definition to include con-victions for non-imprisonable offences as well as cautions, repri-mands and warnings from police. Editor's Note: This would not include innocent people branded as criminals :)

“Me Like A Straightline Very Good Much “ - Chinese Proverb



Luzerne, PA County's Civil Court Records Are Now Online. Luzerne County's online access started last month, and the prothonotary's of-fice received $8 on the first day from online purchases of records, Deputy Protho-notary Art Bobbouine said. Searching the database is free, and the prothonotary's office is charging $1 for the first page of a document purchased and 10 cents for each additional page in the document, Bobbouine said. Buyers will also have to pay a $1.50 convenience fee to GovPay for its elec-tronic invoicing system, Bobbouine said, adding that fee will be charged for each transaction of records pur-chased. To access Luzerne County's civil court re-cords, go to http://bit.ly/sPEeNe Check Tampering Schemes Forged Maker & Concealed Check Schemes The person who signs a check is known as the "maker" of the check. A forged maker fraud oc-curs when an employee ob-tains a blank check, makes it payable to a fraudulent entity, and forges the signa-ture of an authorized maker. To successfully commit this fraud, an employee must have access to a blank check and convincingly forge an authorized signa-ture. Many perpetrators of forged maker schemes steal legitimate company checks,

while others produce coun-terfeit company checks. These instruments often appear legitimate, espe-cially if a professional check-printing company prepares them. The employee places the company account number on the counterfeit checks so that funds can be drawn from the employer's ac-counts. The employee simply puts his/her own name (or an assumed name) as the payee and forges the signa-ture of an authorized signer. The method used to obtain a blank check provides the only difference between a counterfeit check scheme and other forged maker schemes. A concealed check scheme is similar to a forged maker scheme ex-cept for the way the fraud-ster gets the fraudulent

check signed. To perpetrate a concealed check scheme, an employee (usually the person respon-sible for preparing checks) prepares a fraudulent check and submits it to the au-thorized maker (usually concealed in a stack of le-gitimate checks awaiting signatures), who signs it without a proper review. In order for this to operate as planned, the checks are typically delivered to the signer during a busy time of day when he is rushed and less likely to pay close attention to them. Often the checks are spread out on the signer's desk so that the signature lines are exposed but the names of the payees are concealed. If an authorized signer is known to be inattentive, the checks are given to him.



Where Is What Case Found In Nevada? The 17 Municipal Courts manage cases involving violations of traffic and misdemeanor ordinances that occur within the city limits of incorporated mu-nicipalities. The 45 Justice Courts han-dle misdemeanor crime and traffic matters, small claims disputes, evictions, and other civil matters less than $10,000. The justices of the peace also preside over fel-ony and gross misdemeanor arraignments and conduct preliminary hearings to de-termine if sufficient evi-dence exists to hold crimi-nals for trial at District Court. The District Courts have general jurisdiction over all legal disputes. These are the courts where criminal, civil, family, and juvenile matters are generally re-solved through arbitration, mediation, and bench or jury trials. There are 17 courts in 9 districts.

Irish Doing Background Checks The Old Fashioned Way Irish companies are turn-ing to pre-employment lie detector tests as corporate crime rates shoot up. Big security companies, pharmaceutical firms and multi-nationals are now asking potential employees to undergo a truth-telling test from a registered com-pany. As there are more inci-dents of corporate theft, Tiger kidnappings and ille-gal drug production, new employers want to be sure that they have the right can-didate. Sian Devine, CEO of Dublin-based Lie Detector Ltd, said that there is a growing demand for their

services. "Companies want to know that their future employees have integrity and hon-esty," she said. "They want to see if they have historically done something wrong -- and whether they are honest about what they have done. Security companies want to know that people are apply-ing for the jobs for the right reason -- in case of inside information in robberies.

"Any business that has a US base would particularly be interested in these tests as it happens more often in the US. "Another area that is using the facility is pharmaceuti-cal companies, where indi-viduals would have access to make illegal drugs." Individuals who are ap-plying for the positions that require the lie detector test are often reluctant to take a test, Ms Devine said. "The initial response is that they

are wary of them and some would rather leave the posi-tion," she said. "But they are only used to gather the information that would identify that the person oth-erwise wouldn't be entitled to the position. "It's only relevant to that specific company. They'll ask the reasons for joining the company or if it was a childcare position perhaps if they had viewed pornog-raphy online." Lie Detector Ltd also pro-

vides tests for individuals who have been accused of something in their private life. "You might not feel any different when you tell a lie but there are involuntary responses that are part of the nervous system that re-acts in such a way," Ms De-vine said.



More Than One Million Crimes Not On Police Database Surprises No One In Background Screening, Except For CRB Users A fifth of all crimes com-mitted before 1995 are not on the national database because police must pay £100 to access each one from microfiche. It means suspects could have slipped through the net or offenders have been handed softer sentences because the police and courts were unaware of their full criminal past. The revelation has "profound implications" for public safety and puts po-lice operations at risk, the HM Inspectorate of Con-stabulary warned. And yet employers may be handed the details be-cause bodies doing criminal record checks for employ-ees are not charged. A spokesman for the Na-tional Police Improvement Agency (NPIA), the body which runs the microfiche library, said there are now plans to reduce the fee by charging others. The Police National Com-puter (PNC) was intro-duced in 1995 and has elec-tronically recorded all of-fences since then. The national database is used by all police officers to check a suspect or of-fender to see if they have any previous convictions. Police also use it to draw up an individual's criminal history to pass on to the Crown Prosecution Service to inform a sentencing court. Prior to 1995, offences were documented on mi-crofiche and contained 5.2 million records at its height, many of which have

since been transferred to the PNC. However, since April last year forces have been charged £100 for every re-quest to access such a file and requests fell by half to around 40 requests a month. The HMIC report said po-lice are no longer request-ing details of early convic-tions because it costs too much money. Some 1.2 million records, including murders, rapes, arson and GBH, have still not been entered on to the PNC. It means police investigat-ing an individual will not know their full past and courts may hand out a lesser sentence because they are unaware of a long previous history. One HMIC source warned police investigating a rape and searching for suspects may not be aware of a con-victed rapist in the area be-cause their crime was his-toric and not on the system. The report concluded: "Police forces believe this charge to be excessive and consequently are not re-questing the details of pre-1995 convictions. "Since the charge was in-troduced in April 2010 the number of 'fiche requests from forces has decreased. The inescapable conclusion is that police forces are not updating records with 'fiche-based convictions because the charge is con-sidered to be excessive." It added: "This can only impact adversely upon op-erational police efficiency and public safety." It said it was a "matter is of concern" and that the issue "should be addressed as a matter of course with a view to reducing the unre-alistic financial burden upon forces by the NPIA".

A joint statement from the NPIA and the Association of Chief Police Officers said: "Public safety is at the heart of the NPIA and the police service's work. "Police officers will make a professional judgement about when they need to seek further information concerning an individual. "This would routinely in-clude incidents where an arrest or charge has been made. "Where the PNC does not hold a full record of a known individual, it will have a marker alerting po-lice officers that informa-tion is held on microfiche. "We have no evidence that police forces are not performing their public duty by requesting the de-tails held on microfiche. We would find it hard to believe that any force would put public safety at risk for an interim charge of £100." It means suspects could have slipped through the net or offenders have been handed softer sentences because the police and courts were unaware of their full criminal past. The revelation has "profound implications" for public safety and puts po-lice operations at risk, the HM Inspectorate of Con-stabulary warned. And yet employers may be handed the details be-cause bodies doing criminal record checks for employ-ees are not charged. A spokesman for the Na-tional Police Improvement Agency (NPIA), the body which runs the microfiche library, said there are now plans to reduce the fee by charging others. The Police National Com-puter (PNC) was intro-duced in 1995 and has elec-tronically recorded all of-fences since then.

The national database is used by all police officers to check a suspect or of-fender to see if they have any previous convictions. Police also use it to draw up an individual's criminal history to pass on to the Crown Prosecution Service to inform a sentencing court. Prior to 1995, offences were documented on mi-crofiche and contained 5.2 million records at its height, many of which have since been transferred to the PNC. However, since April last year forces have been charged £100 for every re-quest to access such a file and requests fell by half to around 40 requests a month. The HMIC report said po-lice are no longer request-ing details of early convic-tions because it costs too much money. Some 1.2 million records, including murders, rapes, arson and GBH, have still not been entered on to the PNC. It means police investigat-ing an individual will not know their full past and

courts may hand out a lesser sentence because they are unaware of a long previous history. One HMIC source warned police investigating a rape and searching for suspects may not be aware of a con-victed rapist in the area be-cause their crime was his-toric and not on the system. The report concluded: "Police forces believe this charge to be excessive and consequently are not re-questing the details of pre-1995 convictions. "Since the charge was in-troduced in April 2010 the number of 'fiche requests from forces has decreased. The inescapable conclusion is that police forces are not updating records with 'fiche-based convictions because the charge is con-sidered to be excessive." It added: "This can only impact adversely upon op-erational police efficiency and public safety."

Continues next page

Is this doc real? It can’t be Memorex



It means suspects could have slipped through the net or offenders have been handed softer sentences because the police and courts were unaware of their full criminal past. The revelation has "profound implications" for public safety and puts po-lice operations at risk, the HM Inspectorate of Con-stabulary warned. And yet employers may be handed the details be-cause bodies doing criminal record checks for employ-ees are not charged. A spokesman for the Na-tional Police Improvement Agency (NPIA), the body which runs the microfiche library, said there are now plans to reduce the fee by charging others. The Police National Com-puter (PNC) was intro-duced in 1995 and has elec-tronically recorded all of-fences since then. The national database is used by all police officers to check a suspect or of-fender to see if they have any previous convictions. Police also use it to draw up an individual's criminal history to pass on to the Crown Prosecution Service to inform a sentencing

court. Prior to 1995, offences were documented on mi-crofiche and contained 5.2 million records at its height, many of which have since been transferred to the PNC. However, since April last year forces have been charged £100 for every re-quest to access such a file and requests fell by half to around 40 requests a month. The HMIC report said po-lice are no longer request-ing details of early convic-tions because it costs too much money. Some 1.2 million records, including murders, rapes, arson and GBH, have still not been entered on to the PNC. It means police investigat-ing an individual will not know their full past and courts may hand out a lesser sentence because they are unaware of a long previous history. One HMIC source warned police investigating a rape and searching for suspects may not be aware of a con-victed rapist in the area be-cause their crime was his-toric and not on the system. The report concluded: "Police forces believe this charge to be excessive and consequently are not re-questing the details of pre-1995 convictions.

"Since the charge was in-troduced in April 2010 the number of 'fiche requests from forces has decreased. The inescapable conclusion is that police forces are not updating records with 'fiche-based convictions because the charge is con-sidered to be excessive." It added: "This can only impact adversely upon op-erational police efficiency and public safety." It said it was a "matter is of concern" and that the issue "should be addressed as a matter of course with a view to reducing the unre-alistic financial burden upon forces by the NPIA". A joint statement from the NPIA and the Association of Chief Police Officers said: "Public safety is at the heart of the NPIA and the police service's work. "Police officers will make a professional judgement about when they need to seek further information concerning an individual. "This would routinely in-clude incidents where an arrest or charge has been made. "Where the PNC does not hold a full record of a known individual, it will have a marker alerting po-lice officers that informa-

tion is held on microfiche. "We have no evidence that police forces are not performing their public duty by requesting the de-tails held on microfiche. We would find it hard to believe that any force would put public safety at risk for an interim charge of £100." What Is Illinois 1410/710 Probation? The Illinois Cannabis Con-trol Act and the Controlled Substances Act were en-acted in 1971. They specify two special types of probation sen-tences for offenders con-victed of possessing either marijuana or other con-trolled substances. For those convicted of Con-trolled Substances Act vio-lations (e.g., possession of less than fifteen grams of cocaine, heroin or mor-phine), the sentencing op-tion is known as “1410 pro-bation” and for those con-victed of marijuana posses-sion or delivery, it is known as “710 probation.” Only offenders with no prior felony convictions, probations or supervisions, including those resulting

from previous violations of either Act (or of similar laws in other states or at the federal level), are eligible for 1410/710 sentences (for example, Chapter 570, Sec. 410a of the Illinois Revised Statutes). In addition to having no felony prior convictions, 1410/710-eligible defen-dants also must have plead or been found guilty. The principal incentive for defendants to accept sen-tences to 1410/710 proba-tion is that at the end of five years following their sentencing date (a period that includes the successful completion of their proba-tion term) they can petition the court for expungement of their conviction.

Don't Cheat At School Or Else 20 students in Long Island were arrested after being caught cheating on the SAT. Students were caught pay-ing others to take their ex-ams for them, according to NBC New York's website. Pam Gilson, a testing co-ordinator at UW-Green Bay said, "It is sad to see that some students will do any-thing to excel in life and that honesty and integrity are not important values to them." "If a person is willing to be dishonest and cheat, they must suffer the conse-quences—even if it means being arrested."

TORONTO COURT RECORDS

We really go there

CALL 1-866-909-6678

One Million Records Not In Police Database! Continued from page 11

Wow! Very Cool



Knowing When An Arrest is Legal An arrest occurs when po-lice officers take a suspect into custody. An arrest is complete the moment the suspect is no longer free to walk away from the arresting police officer. The U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment author-izes arrests only if the po-lice have "probable cause" to believe that a crime was committed and that the sus-pect did it. The probable cause re-quirement restrains the power of the police to de-prive people of liberty. It prevents the random roundup of "undesirables" that sometimes occurs in other countries. Some principles of prob-able cause are well settled: • To establish probable cause, police officers must be able to point to objective factual circumstances that lead them to believe that a suspect committed a crime. A police officer can't es-tablish probable cause by saying something like, "I just had a hunch that the defendant was a burglar." • Judges, not police offi-cers, have the last word on whether probable cause ex-ists. A police officer may be sincere in believing that enough factual information to constitute probable cause exists. But if a judge examines that same information and disagrees, then probable cause does not exist -- or did not exist, if the question is being decided after the arrest occurred.

• Probable cause to arrest may have existed at the time of the arrest, even if the police later turn out to be wrong. Put differently, an arrest is valid if it is based on prob-able cause, even if the ar-rested person is innocent. In this situation, probable cause protects the police against a civil suit for false arrest if the charges are later dismissed or the de-fendant is acquitted at trial. These principles leave open the most important issue concerning probable cause: How much information do police officers need to con-vince a judge to issue an arrest warrant or to justify a

warrantless arrest? In general, probable cause requires more than a "mere suspicion" that a suspect committed a crime, but not so much information that it proves a suspect guilty be-yond a reasonable doubt. In the abstract, a firm defi-nition of probable cause is impossible. The Fourth Amendment doesn't provide a definition, so it's up to judges to inter-pret the meaning of prob-able cause on a case-by-case basis, taking into ac-count: • What the judge thinks the Fourth Amendment's drafters meant by the term probable cause

• Previous judges' inter-pretations in similar fact situations, and • The judge's views about police rights v. defendants' rights. Judges help to define the meaning of probable cause each time they issue a war-rant or decide a case in which the issue arises. Cuyahoga Sheriff's Facebook Page Nets 1,000 Fugitives Since the launch of its Facebook® page in January 2010, the Cuyahoga County (Ohio) Sheriff's Office has

made more than 1,000 ar-rests it can relate to infor-mation posted on the site. The page averages more than 5,000 views, and the sheriff's office uses it to share posts and collect tips from the public. Cuyahoga County has av-eraged two arrests per day that it can link to the site. The sheriff's office re-cently added a section on missing persons and non-compliant sex offenders and started a Twitter feed



Canada: Suspect Your Employee Is Using Drugs Or Drinking? One Opinion by George wagott and lai Kin Hum Many Canadian employ-ers are uncertain about the laws surrounding drug and alcohol tests for employees. Drug and alcohol testing is a challenging issue, and tests can only be used in limited circumstances. Ap-plied improperly, the test-ing could easily lead to a contravention of applicable human rights laws. In this regard, it is important that all employers understand the laws surrounding drug and alcohol testing in Can-ada, and create policies and procedures that will with-stand legal scrutiny. Requirements for drug and alcohol testing policy Employers can justify the discriminatory effect of testing if the drug and alco-hol testing policy meets all three of the following re-quirements1: *The policy must be adopted for a purpose that is rationally connected to the performance of the job (e.g. employee and public safety); *The policy must be adopted in good faith, in the belief that it is neces-sary for the fulfilment of that legitimate work-related purpose; and *The policy must be rea-sonably necessary to the accomplishment of that le-gitimate work-related pur-pose.2 Because of these require-ments, testing should gen-erally be limited to deter-mining actual impairment of an employee's ability to perform their essential du-ties. In other words, testing cannot be used solely to identify the presence of drugs or alcohol in the body. Unlike alcohol test-ing, drug testing does not

actually measure impair-ment – it only determines if drugs are present in the body. As such, drug testing is more controversial. Test-ing that has no demonstra-ble relationship to impair-ment, job safety or per-formance will be found to be a violation of an em-ployee's rights. Perhaps just as importantly, many drug tests will be of no use in support of related efforts by the employer to discipline employees who fail such tests. As this area of law is con-tentious and constantly evolving, the following principles will be applied differently depending upon the circumstances and, sometimes, the province. This bulletin focuses on applying these general prin-ciples to determine which employees can be tested and when employees can be tested. Which employees can be tested? Blanket drug and alcohol testing is regarded as dis-criminatory since addiction is considered to be a dis-ability under human rights laws. More significantly, drug testing does not reflect actual or future job impair-ment. Therefore, to test an employee for drugs or alco-hol, there needs to be: *a rational connection be-tween testing and the em-ployee's job performance; and *risk to the safety of co-workers or members of the public created by an em-ployee's alcohol or drug abuse. As a result, typically only employees in "safety-sensitive" positions may be tested for alcohol or drugs. When can an employee be tested? There are two times when an employer may want to test an employee for drugs or alcohol: before hiring the employee and while the

employee is working. Pre-employment testing Pre-employment drug and alcohol testing is generally considered to be discrimi-natory and an unjustifiable intrusion into the rights of employees, regardless of whether or not the em-ployee will occupy a safety-sensitive position. This is because such tests essentially deny employ-ment to people who are drug or alcohol dependent and because such testing does not reflect actual or future job impairment. Pre-employment drug and alco-hol testing may, however, be justifiable in some cir-cumstances. For example, pre-employment testing may be allowed where there is evidence not only showing the link between impairment, job perform-ance and safety, but also showing unique safety-sensitive circumstances (e.g. an "ultra-dangerous" workplace) or a significant risk or history of employees being impaired while at work3. Pre-employment drug and alcohol testing may also be acceptable if the potential employee is not refused employment because of a positive test, but is instead accommodat-ed4. On-the-job testing There are three types of on-the-job drug and alcohol testing to be considered: 1. random testing; 2. "for cause" testing; and 3. post-incident testing. Random testing Generally, random drug testing is considered to be an unjustifiable intrusion into the rights of employ-ees, even if they occupy safety-sensitive positions. This is because drug testing does not reflect actual or future job impairment. As with pre-employment test-ing, however, random drug

testing may be justifiable in extreme circumstances where there is evidence showing unique safety-sensitive circumstances or if there is a significant risk or history of employees be-ing impaired while at work5. Random alcohol testing, on the other hand, is con-sidered to be a minimally intrusive and effective method of measuring im-pairment6. However, ran-dom alcohol testing can still only be used for em-ployees in safety-sensitive positions, where there is a clear connection between impairment and the em-ployee's performance and safety. For cause and post-incident testing "For cause" drug and alco-hol testing is potentially permissible when there is reasonable cause to suspect alcohol or drug abuse. Post-incident testing is when an accident has occurred at work and there is reason-able cause to suspect that alcohol or drug abuse may have contributed to the ac-cident. In both of these cases, such testing may be allowed so long as it forms part of a larger assessment of drug and alcohol use and so long as the employer is able to show that there is an objective basis to believe all of the following: *That job performance would be impaired by drug or alcohol dependency. In other words, that there is a rational connection be-tween testing and job per-formance; *That the employee's be-haviour or the incident is related to alcoholism or drug addiction or depend-ency; and *That the degree, nature, scope and probability of risk caused by alcohol or drug abuse or dependency will adversely affect the safety of co-workers or members of the public. What if an employee tests

positive? Automatically terminating the employment of an em-ployee who has tested posi-tive for drugs or alcohol is an invitation for a human rights complaint. If an employee tests posi-tive for either drugs or al-cohol, the sanction must be tailored to that employee's specific circumstances. Any proven employee de-pendency or addiction must be accommodated unless the employer can demon-strate that such accommo-dation will cause undue hardship. Therefore, an em-ployer needs to consider both the applicable human rights legislation and the question of accommodation without undue hardship in order to help shield itself from a potential human rights claim. Given the close scrutiny of employer drug and alco-hol policies, and their con-troversial nature, employers are well advised to seek legal guidance on their creation and implementa-tion. Playing Doctor Can Give Your Kid A Criminal Record A 6-year-old boy is being accused of first-degree sex-ual assault of a child for playing doctor with a 5-year-old girl in Grant County, Wis. The boy, who is now 7 years old, has a develop-mental disability and was diagnosed with stress disor-ders. Because the father of the 5-year-old girl is a Grant County political figure, the boy's attorney alleges the investigation of the case was biased and authorities were not reasonable when charging a child with first-degree sexual assault.



Jennifer Lopez's Boyfriend Flaunts The Law By Gossip Cop.com While Jennifer Lopez was busy putting out records, her new guy, Casper Smart, was racking up police re-cords. It wasas learned that Smart, whose real name is Beau Paul Smart, has been picked up by the cops on many occasions for speed-ing and other traffic charges, such as driving without a valid license. Lopez’s back-up dancer is set to appear in court on January 5, 2012, stemming from an April 2010 arrest for illegal drag racing. This past March, Smart pled no contest. But before his January court date, as part of his deal, Smart has to complete 10 days of community ser-vice. The maximum Smart faces is 90 days behind bars and a $500 fine.



Kiosks In Russia Speed Access To Legal Information Russian citizens are used to waiting in long lines to ask judicial assistants ques-tions about their court cases or to file legal documents. Those who cannot afford lawyers spend even more time navigating the legal system. The lack of readily available information about court operations and incon-sistent customer service are two reasons why many Russians have lost confi-dence in their legal institu-tions. To help Russian courts improve the services that they offer citizens, Chemonics’ Judicial Re-form and Partnership pro-gram worked with five pilot

courts to test and refine court administration and case-management practices, especially by using infor-mation technology in inno-vative ways. One initiative involved the installation of easy-to-use kiosks that allow citizens to quickly access the informa-tion they need themselves. Located at the entrances of court buildings, these kiosks provide a range of legal information, including an explanation of court structure and operating pro-cedures; office hours of judges and court employ-ees; samples of documents, such as applications, claims, and other forms; detailed information about laws in the Russian Federa-tion; information about jus-tices of the peace; and in-formation about court hear-ings and decisions.

Software for the kiosks, developed by the Voskhod Research Institute, is inte-grated with the courts’ IT systems, which gives the public direct access to ac-curate and up-to-date court information while protect-ing anonymity and privi-leged data. Users at the pilot courts praised the new kiosks. “It is easy and convenient to use an information kiosk,” said Valentina Demina, a schoolteacher who used the kiosk at a court in Nizhny Novgorod. “Within sec-onds, you have the infor-mation you need!” Because they enable citi-zens to quickly access legal information and free clerks from having to answer rou-tine questions, the new ki-osks are making things eas-ier for court workers as

well as the public. According to Ludmila Be-liakova, head of the Priok-ski District Court’s Case Management Department, the kiosks are making the courts much more efficient. “The kiosks save us a lot of time that we used to have to spend answering general questions on court opera-tion that we can now spend giving people advice on more complicated, specific questions,” she said. The five pilot courts are among the first in Russia to have such kiosks, and their success is catching on. The Russian Judicial Depart-ment has committed to fi-nancing the installation of information kiosks in all Russian courts thuss spreading the benefits of this technology across the country.

Maine's One Stop Background Check The Center for Digital Government recently rec-ognized the State of Maine with a Digital Government Achievement Award in the government-to-business category for the One Stop Online Background Check Service. The online service, spon-sored by the Department of Public Safety and the Bu-reau of Motor Vehicles, was created to provide a convenient, up-to-date, and official source for Maine online background checks. The national award pro-gram highlights exceptional state government websites and online services and is highly competitive. Maine's One Stop Background Check ( http://www.maine.gov/online/dps/background_check ) provides a combined search of multiple official state databases including Maine crash reports, Maine public criminal history records,

Maine driver history re-cords, and the Maine sex offender registry. Instead of conducting in-dividual checks through multiple services, busi-nesses now can conduct a complete search in one sim-ple transaction and obtain a consolidated report on an individual. "Consolidating the ser-vices into one search and report makes the back-ground check process more convenient for businesses, especially employers," noted Matt Ruel, Director of the State Bureau of Iden-tification. Background check results ordered through the online service are typically deliv-ered to the customer via email in a consolidated electronic report. The service is useful to employers, investigators, day care providers and a variety of other businesses that routinely need to per-form background checks. "Not only does this ser-vice provide convenience, but users can be confident in the accuracy and timeli-ness of the data they re-ceive, as it comes straight from the official databases of the Department of Public Safety and the Bureau of Motor Vehicles," stated Clarissa Hurley, Online Services Branch Manager for the Bureau of Motor Vehicles. InforME developed this online service at the request of Maine businesses that were surveyed in an exten-sive user needs analysis conducted in 2009. The service was devel-oped at no cost to Maine taxpayers, and enhances the popular suite of online business services available through Maine.gov ( http://www.maine.gov ).



Wrangling The Workplace Bully Experts say that work-place bullying is a wide-spread problem. According to a survey conducted last year by Zogby International, 35 percent of U.S. workers--or an estimated 54 million people--have been victims of workplace bullying at some point in their profes-sional lives. Joel Neuman, a professor of management and organ-izational behavior at the State University of New York at New Paltz, noted that workplace bullying can take many forms, though it is generally defined as be-ing a persistent form of ag-gression that aims to hu-miliate, undermine, or os-tracize another employee. The targets of workplace bullying are often the most senior and competent per-son on the team, since they are viewed by the bully as being a threat, the Work-place Bullying Institute says. Although a dozen states have enacted legislation over the last several years to address the problem of workplace bullying, there are also steps that employ-ers can take to deal with the issue before it arises. For instance, employers

should have a code of pro-fessional conduct in place that lets employees know what kind of behavior is expected of them, as well the disciplinary measures that they could face for not

complying with the code, Neuman said. Experts also say that man-agers should talk with the employees who they think are being bullied and inves-

tigate their claims. If an employee is found to have been bullying a col-league, the bully should be given a written warning or face suspension or termina-

tion.

We background U.S. Servicemen who were stationed in Germany




NJ Government Might Ease Expungment Offenders would have an easier time getting their re-cords expunged under a bill discussed in the Nj Assem-bly Judiciary Committee. The committee mulled the bill, which was first intro-duced in 2005, but did not hold a vote on it in part be-cause the state’s outdated court computer system would make it virtually im-possible to implement. The measure (A1060) would automatically ex-punge records for those convicted of disorderly per-sons offenses after three years. Currently, those convicted of disorderly conduct have to petition for expungement after five years. For more serious indict-able offenses, ex-convicts would have their record expunged automatically after seven years. Right now, they can peti-tion for expungement after 10 years. “Expungement processes are generally a way for many small offenders to get a fresh start,” said Assem-blyman Reed Gusciora (D-Mercer), the bill’s sponsor. The bill would also elimi-nate a required $30 fee. Under current law, those convicted of minor offenses can get their records ex-punged if they do not com-mittee any other crimes. If an expungement is granted, the crime is “considered not to have oc-curred,” according to the New Jersey Judiciary’s website. Some serous offenses -- including criminal homi-cide, kidnapping, luring, endangering the welfare of

a child and sexual assault – cannot be removed from a convict's record. Gusciora said petitioning to get one’s record to be expunged is complicated and usually requires hiring a lawyer, which is expen-sive. Gusciora also noted that most petitions for expunge-ment are granted. “I don’t understand why there needs to be an ex-pungement process and why, in this computer age, it can’t be done automati-cally,” he said. But Dan Phillips, legisla-tive liaison for the Admin-istrative Office of the Courts, said the court sys-tem’s antiquated computer system could not handle the paperwork. “We are not in the com-puter age in the courts or criminal justice system,” he said. “We are a paper-based system, and we’re drown-ing in a paper-based sys-tem.” Phillips said there is “value to this bill” in help-ing first-time offenders put their pasts behind them. But, he added, “for the courts to even attempt to implement this would be a nightmare.”

Past Editions of

The BackGround Investigator are available

FREE at

www. thebackgroundinvestigator.com

Hey You! Who, me? Yes, you. You’re reading this, right? Yes. See — either small ads work or I like talking to myself. To be continued...



After Years Of Selling Wisconsin Searches? You're Finally There (almost) For years, Portage County has been Wisconsin's black hole of online court re-cords, the only of the state's 72 counties not to partici-pate in the wildly popular CCAP system. The state court system has announced Portage had fi-nally joined the clan, after the new Clerk of Circuit Court had her staff work "tirelessly" with state court system staff to convert 180,000 files dating back 25 years. "We will now be able to provide greater security in a variety of ways for court files, as well as allow

greater access by the public to our court information,” Patricia Cal Baker said. But don't rush online to look up your Stevens Point friends and relatives quite yet. The case information won't show up for a few months, according to the state courts system, "after court staff works to ensure the data converted from the local Portage county sys-tem is accurate and com-plete." As the court system likes to explain, CCAP actually is the Consolidated Court Automation Programs that offers lots more than case lookup to judges, clerks and lawyers within the sys-tem. The online public ac-cess component is properly known as WCCA -- Wis-consin Circuit Court Ac-cess. But it will always be CCAP to us. Editor’s Note:

The Wisconsin article is a great example of how a government official can argue for hours about how they get criminal records online and then an article pops up like the one above. Bet advice; Do what you know to be the best.

Penn State Scandal Picks Up Business Recent scandals involving high-profile coaches are a sobering reminder of the need for vigilance in safe-guarding children with one company reported a 180% increase in coach online background checks vs. the same period last year, due to increase in awareness and diligence by youth sports organizations. SportsSignup, based in

Saratoga Springs, New York, is helping to address this need with a proprietary service known as KidSafe-Plus®, a comprehensive criminal background check management system that is designed specifically for youth sports organizations. Developed in partnership

with LexisNexis®, Kid-SafePlus offers youth sports leagues access to ac-curate, affordable, private background screenings of coaches, volunteers and officials who supervise or otherwise have regular con-tact with young athletes.



Hull, England January 2011

Nashville, TN February 2011

Ottawa, Canada March 2011

Borneo, Malaysia April 2011

Hangzhou, China May 2011

Long Island, NY June 2011

Sorrento, Italy July 2011

Amsterdam, Netherlands August 2011

Buffalo, NY September 2011

Saint Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands October 2011

Baltimore, MD November 2011

Cheyenne, WY December 2011



Some of the biggest data providers were accused of perpetuating errors. North Carolina revoked the licenses of CoreLogic SafeRent Thomson West, CourtTrax and five others for repeatedly disseminat-ing bad information or fail-ing to download updates. Thomson West says it was punished for two instances of failing to delete outdated criminal records in a timely manner. Such instances are "extremely rare" and led to improvements in Thomson West's computer systems, the company said. CoreLogic says its accu-racy standards meet the law, and it seemed to blame North Carolina, saying that the state's actions "directly contributed to the condi-tions which resulted in the alleged contract violations," but it would not elaborate. CourtTrax did not respond to requests for comment. Other background check companies say the errors aren't always their fault. LexisNexis, a major pro-vider of background checks and criminal data, said in a statement that any errors in its records "stem from inac-curacies in original source material — typically public records such as courthouse documents." But other problems have arisen with the shift to digi-tal criminal records. Even technical glitches can cause mistakes. Companies that run back-ground checks sometimes blame weather. Ann Lane says her investigations firm, Carolina Investigative Research, in North Caro-lina, has endured hurricanes and ice storms that knocked out power to her computers

and took them out of sync with court computers. While computers are off-line, critical updates to files can be missed. That can cause one person's records to fall into another person's file, Lane says. She says glitches show up in her da-tabase at least once a year. Lane says she double-checks the physical court filings, a step she says many other companies do not take. She calls her com-petitors' actions short-sighted. "A lot of these database companies think it's 'ka-ching ka-ching ka-ching,'" she says. Data providers defend their accuracy. LexisNexis does more than 12 million background checks a year. It is one of the world's big-gest data providers, with more than 22 billion public records on its own com-puters. It says fewer than 1 per-cent of its background checks are disputed. That still amounts to 120,000 people — more than the population of Topeka, Kan. But there are problems with those assertions. Peo-ple rarely know when they are victims of data errors. Employers are required by law to tell job applicants when they've been rejected because of negative infor-mation in a background check. But many do not. Even the vaunted FBI criminal records database has problems. The FBI da-tabase has information on sentencings and other case results for only half its ar-rest records. Many people in the database have been cleared of charges. The Jus-tice Department says the records are incomplete be-cause states are inconsistent in reporting the conclusions of their cases. The FBI re-stricts access to its records, locking out the commercial database providers that

regularly buy information from state and county gov-ernment agencies. Data providers are regu-lated by the Federal Trade Commission and required by federal law to have "reasonable procedures" to keep accurate records. Few cases are filed against them, though, mostly be-cause building a case is dif-ficult. A series of breaches in the mid-2000s put the spotlight on data providers' accuracy and security. The fallout was supposed to put the industry on a path to re-form, and many companies tightened security. But the latest problems show that some accuracy practices are broken. The industry says it po-lices itself and believes the approach is working. Mike Cool, a vice president with Acxiom Corp., a data wholesaler, praised an ac-creditation system devel-oped by an industry group, the National Association of Professional Background Screeners. Fear of litigation keeps the number of errors in check, he says. "The system works well if everyone stays compliant," Cool says. But when the system breaks down, it does so spectacularly. Dennis Teague was disap-pointed when he was re-jected for a job at the Wis-consin state fair. He was horrified to learn why: A background check showed a 13-page rap sheet loaded with gun and drug crimes and lengthy prison lockups. But it wasn't his record. A cousin had apparently given Teague's name as his own during an arrest. What galled Teague was that the police knew the cousin's true identity. It was even written on the back-ground check. Yet below Teague's name, there was an unmistakable message,

in bold letters: "Convicted Felon." Teague sued Wisconsin's Department of Justice, which furnished the data and prepared the report. He blamed a faulty algorithm that the state uses to match people to crimes in its elec-tronic database of criminal records. The state says it was appropriate to include the cousin's record, because that kind of information is useful to employers the same way it is useful to law enforcement. Teague argued that the computers should have been programmed to keep the records separate. "I feel powerless," he says. "I feel like I have the worst luck ever. It's basi-cally like I'm being pun-ished for living right." One of Teague's lawyers, Jeff Myer of Legal Action of Wisconsin, an advocacy law firm for poorer clients, says the state is protecting the sale of its lucrative da-tabases. "It's a big moneymaker, and that's what it's all about," Myer says. "The convenience of online in-formation is so seductive that the record-keepers have stopped thinking about its inaccuracy. As valuable as I find public information that's available over the Internet, I don't think people have a full ap-preciation of the dark side." In court papers, Wisconsin defended its inclusion of Teague's name in its data-base because his cousin has used it as an alias. "We've already refuted Mr. Teague's claims in our court documents," said Dana Brueck, a spokes-woman for Wisconsin's De-partment of Justice. "We're not going to quibble with him in the press." A Wisconsin state judge plans to issue his decision in Teague's case by March

11. The number of people pulling physical court files for background checks is shrinking as more courts put information online. With fewer people to con-trol quality, accuracy suf-fers. Some states are pushing ahead with electronic re-cords programs anyway. Arizona says it hasn't had problems with companies failing to implement up-dates. Others are more cautious. New Mexico had consid-ered selling its data in bulk but decided against it be-cause officials felt they did-n't have an effective way to enforce updates. Meanwhile, the victims of data inaccuracies try to build careers with flawed reputations. Kathleen Casey scraped by on temporary work until she settled her lawsuit against First Advantage, the background check com-pany. It corrected her re-cord. But the bad data has come up in background checks conducted by other companies. She has found work, but she says the experience has left her scarred. "It's like Jurassic Park. They come at you from all angles, and God knows what's going to jump out of a tree at you or attack you from the front or from the side," she says. "This could rear its ugly head again — and what am I going to do then?"


Got $59 ? Get an ad. Give me a call. 1-670-256-7000



Background Checks: How Much Digging Is Too Much? by Eve Tahmincioglu Background checks for job applicants have increas-ingly been the subject of debate and discussion in Delaware and elsewhere. The use of such pre-employment screenings is far from clear-cut, and some argue the checks may even discriminate against certain applicants. The issue was raised re-cently in Delaware regard-ing a group of employees at the state’s Division of Sub-stance Abuse and Mental Health who were not screened when hired. That caused a problem last month when the state was about to open a mobile cri-sis unit with Beebe Medical Center in Lewes because that hospital requires such screenings of its employ-ees. In total there are about 100 employees at the divi-sion who have not gone through such employment checks but not all of them work directly with patients. “We are reviewing the hiring requirements for community-based state em-ployees in the Division of Substance Abuse and Men-tal Health,” said Rita Land-graf, Secretary of the Dela-ware Department of Health and Social Services. “At my direction, the Division of Management Services is conducting a review of ex-isting employees, their roles and involvement with clients, existing hiring re-quirements and governing policy and law.” Indeed, there are a number of factors to consider when such employment screen-ings are conducted, say em-ployment experts. Criminal, and other re-views including credit background checks, as a

condition of employment have become increasingly popular in Delaware and across the nation. In some cases, employers are re-quired to do such reviews, especially for those job seekers who work with children, patients, or di-rectly with money, such as many banking jobs. But more and more, organiza-tions are using such re-views even when a person’s criminal or credit history has little or no bearing on the position sought. This year the number of criminal background checks by employers in Delaware is expected to rise by 12 percent, accord-ing to Sergeant Paul G. Shavack, a spokesman for the Delaware State Police. The DSP through its Bu-reau of Identification com-pletes about 46,000 crimi-nal background checks an-nually. Delaware employers of all types perform such re-views, not just government agencies. And many em-ployers make it clear in job postings that they’re going to dig into an applicant’s background. For example, Southern States Cooperative in Sea-ford and 84 Lumber in Claymont both had job openings posted on Mon-ster.com recently, and both included a requirement for background checks as a condition of employment. Dave Haley, manager of the 84 Lumber store, said the company as been doing such checks for five years and that all employees no matter what the job have to have it done. And Southern States, which employees about 100 people in Dela-ware, also performs crimi-nal background reviews on all employees once an offer is made, said Turner Gravitt, a spokesman for the company. “It’s our pol-icy,” he noted. Some blanket policies, however, have come under

fire nationally, and some states have even passed leg-islation to limit or ban cer-tain background checks in employment. “It can lead to discrimina-tion,” said Kathleen Mac-Rae, executive director of ACLU Delaware, about indiscriminate background checks, which can ad-versely impact minority because of higher incar-ceration rates and higher rates of credit issues. “It creates a whole pool of people that become unem-ployable.” Indeed, on a national level the Equal Employment Op-portunity Commission has made curbing such employ-ment reviews a top priority. “As a general matter, the use of arrest and conviction records to deny employ-ment can be illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which prohib-its discrimination on the basis of race, color, na-tional origin, religion and sex) because it can have a disparate impact on certain racial and ethnic minorities whose arrest and conviction rates are greater than other groups,” said Christine Nazer, a spokeswoman for the EEOC. “Having shown a disparate impact, an em-ployer can justify its policy by showing that it was job-related and required by business necessity, and that no other less-discriminatory alternatives existed.” She said there are three factors employers must consider: 1.the nature and gravity of the offense; 2.the time passed since the conviction or completion of the sentence; 3.the nature of the job in question. As for credit history re-views, she continued, “the EEOC is concerned that excluding people with poor credit may exclude quali-fied job seekers and some minority groups, and there-

fore may be discriminatory under civil rights law. Em-ployers need to show that the use of credit records is job-related and consistent with business necessity.” The ACLU’s MacRae be-lieves the use of such re-views is on the rise because technology has made it so easy and so cheap to dig up such information on appli-cants. And Margaret M. DiBi-anca, an attorney who represents employers for Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor in Wilmington, added that with so many job applicants today be-cause of the tough job mar-ket, employers are using these background checks in order to easily weed out some candidates. However, she noted, that approach could backfire. Since there are so many people out of work and as a result many have less than perfect credit histories, po-tentially good candidates could be overlooked. “It’s a double-edged sword,” she added. MacRae and DiBianca said there were unaware of any movements in Dela-ware to pass legislation that would limit the use of such reviews. “Under current state laws it perfectly legal,” said Robert Strong, Deputy Principal Assistant at the Delaware Department of Labor, about credit and criminal background checks. But for last four or five years, there’s been signifi-cant push back in other states and municipalities, including neighboring ones. Earlier this year, Philadel-phia passed an ordinance precluding city agencies and private employers with more than 10 employees from conducting criminal background checks before an initial interview. That law also prohibits employ-

ers from requiring appli-cants to disclose or reveal criminal convictions until after the application proc-ess and initial interview are completed. Employers re-quired by law to conduct background checks are ex-empt. Many cities and towns, and several states have en-acted similar laws limiting background checks for gov-ernment employees, but only Massachusetts and Hawaii have passed laws like the one in Philadelphia extending those limitations to private employers, ac-cording to the Society for Human Resource Manage-ment. As for credit background checks, under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, em-ployers have to ask permis-sion of job seekers before they can run such reports; and some states have actu-ally moved to ban these reviews. To date, four states, Ha-waii, Illinois, Oregon and Washington, have passed laws restricting such re-views and 18 others, in-cluding the District of Co-lumbia, have introduced legislation to do so, accord-ing to the National Confer-ence of State Legislatures. “It’s a byproduct of the digital age,” said the ACLU’s MacRae about the growing use of such re-views. “Our laws and our culture have not been able to keep up with the changes.”


Saipan Guam No one better

1-866-909-6678





Backgrounds Of Foreign Criminals Never Checked, In U.S., Either Doesn't Surprise Straightline Tens of thousands of for-eign criminals could be slipping through the net because police only check the backgrounds of one in seven, an official review revealed. Of the tens of thousands of EU suspects arrested in the UK, officers only ask their home nation for a criminal record check in 15 per cent of cases, it emerged in a Home Office report. In the courts last year alone, some 35,000 EU citi-zens were convicted but previous foreign offences were only sought from the Central Authority for the Exchange of Criminal Re-cords (UKCA) in 5,500 cases. It means in the majority of cases judges do not know the full offending history of tens of thousands of crimi-nals when passing sentence. Thousands more could have slipped under the ra-dar if they were only ar-rested for a minor offence or not charged. The report, for the Home Office, raised the prospect that foreign criminals could be working in sensitive po-sitions or with children without their employers knowing their true past. And Sunita Mason, who carried out the review of criminal record checks, warned that funding cuts to the UKCA could make the problem worse and pose a “potentially huge” risk to the public. Mrs Mason said checks on EU citizens were “patchy” at best while those on peo-ple from outside Europe

were “much less positive”. She said the problem of obtaining overseas convic-tions was “an ever-growing gulf of public protection”. She added: “In a world with far more global travel, both for work and pleasure, and with the less scrupu-lous taking advantage of these new opportunities to continue their offending behaviour across borders, it is clearly important that an individual’s criminal record should include court con-victions from other juris-dictions were possible.” Difficulty in obtaining such records means public protection agencies may not know the dangers posed by those they come in to contact with, she said. The report also revealed that hundreds of previously unknown serious violent and sex offences committed by Britons while abroad have been unearthed. The UK set up the UKCA in 2006 to improve the ob-taining of criminal records from around the EU. Since then, the agency has received 20,000 notifica-tions of which 450 involved serious sex or violent of-fences committed by Brit-ons overseas. Only 37 of them were pre-viously known while 276 involved offences against children. However, Mrs Mason said funding for the agency over the next three years was unclear. She warned: “Not to ad-dress this issue is a poten-tially huge public protec-tion risk.” The report also said more work should be done to in-crease the number of occa-sions when fingerprints are also sent along with previ-ous convictions to stop of-fenders turning up in the UK and claiming to be

someone else. It also recommended that potential employers should be allowed to request a for-eign background check if the applicant agreed. In January it emerged that more than one million crimes, including murders and rapes, are not on the Police National Computer because forces are refusing to pay a fee to obtain the criminal history of offend-ers. A fifth of all crimes com-mitted before 1995 are not on the national database because police must pay £100 to access each one from microfiche. A Home Office spokes-woman said: “It is an op-erational matter for police to decide when to request information on foreign na-tionals. "The UK worked hard to implement an EU-wide agreement to share this in-formation - but we know all countries do not currently comply fully. “That is why it is impor-tant that the new European legislation implemented next Spring will require member-states to share this information.”

Closing Sales On Civil Searches by Steven Brownstein Civil Record Searching can bring in $$$ if you can obtain the results that your client requested. The most common type of information needed by Pre-Employment Screen-ers are civil lawsuits where the subject has ap-peared as a defendant. The idea would be to find out if the applicant de-faults on his word ( con-tract ) or in the case of a driver ( motor vehicle personal injury )This is

usually a test of an appli-cant’s integrity. Other types of civil cases re-quested are usually for di-vorce, paternity or medical malpractice. The most common barrier to this type of search is the lack of identifiers found. Many suits are filed by name only and upon in-spection of most files one usually finds just an ad-dress of the defendant. Other documents that might help identify the de-fendant would be copies of the installment agreement ( some require social secu-rity numbers ) and there usually is a signature of the defendant on that agree-ment. Another barrier is where the summons is served to their attorney of record. There would be no address. Pray for a signature. Be grateful if the jurisdic-tion you are researching requires a social security number for recordkeeping; they are far and few be-tween. In 1992 the Nation’s larg-est 75 counties disposed an estimated 378,000 tort

cases ( complaints charging damages ) of which the ma-jority were auto torts ( charging damage caused by a motor vehicle ). Most cases ( about 75% ) were disposed through an agreed settlement or volun-tary dismissal. Only 3% were disposed by trial ver-dict. Cleaning Toilet Now A Crime The federal criminal code has grown so large it en-snares everyday citizens who have no idea they are violating the law. Lawrence Lewis ended up with a federal criminal re-cord while trying to deal with clogged toilets at a military retirement home in Washington, D.C. "He was subject to the same law that [would apply to] somebody who know-ingly, willingly dumped toxic materials into a navi-gable water," according to Rep. F. James Sensenbren-ner (R., Wis.), chairman of the House Judiciary Com-mittee's panel on crime, terrorism and homeland security.



Placer / Lake County Furlough Days by Baxter Research Lake and Placer County courts will be imposing fur-lough days for the first half of 2012. This is due to recent budget cuts. During the following dates, the courts will be closed and the public in-dexes inaccessible. No files, case data or dockets will be available. Beginning in January, Lake courts will be closed the first Friday of every month until June 2012. The dates of those particu-lar Fridays are 1/6, 2/3, 3/2, 4/6, 5/4 and 6/1. Placer courts will be closed the fourth Friday of every month until June 2012. The dates of those particu-lar Fridays are Jan 27th, March 23rd, April 27, May 25th and and June15.

Chicago Suburbs Decriminalize Marijuana Even as Chicago ponders whether to decriminalize pot possession, one of its suburbs has gone ahead and done it. The city of Evans-ton passed its 2012 budget, complete with an ordinance that decriminalizes the pos-session of less than 10 grams of marijuana. People caught with fewer than 10 grams would be ticketed and fined, but would face no jail time and no criminal record. Up until now, they would have been charged with a misde-meanor and faced up to six months in jail. City council members and Evanston Mayor Elizabeth Tisdahl said that decrimi-

nalization would prevent young people from being burdened with a criminal record and would free up police and prosecutorial resources in the revenue-strapped town. "There is a high amount of paperwork and time that is spent going to court," Al-derwoman Melissa Wynne told the Daily Northwest-ern. "It's not just the arrest, but then the processing and follow-through that takes a lot of time." "A one-time violation by someone with that level of possession could be a teen-ager or someone in col-lege," said Alderman Don-ald Wilson. "I wouldn't want to see people suffer the long-term consequences of something that might just be short-term miscon-

duct." Alderman Peter Braithwaite cited a higher rate of marijuana arrests among black youths in the city in explaining his sup-port for decriminalization. "I'm definitely very con-cerned about the number of black teens who end up in the criminal justice system and how that affects their futures and abilities to get jobs later in life," he said. Marijuana law reform is definitely in the air in the Chicago area. The Cook County Board of Commis-sioners okayed decriminali-zation in unincorporated areas of the county in 2009 and then expanded that re-mit to include all jurisdic-tions in the county that don't have their own police forces. The suburban city

of Skokie recently decrimi-nalized possession of less than 10 grams for teenag-

ers, and the city of Chicago is currently considering a decriminalization move.



Police Records, Court Records, Jail Records, Conviction Records, National Databases By Steven Brownstein

Just a week ago I was sit-ting in a large court's ad-ministration office.

The Administrator was scratching his head. Dumb me, I asked why. The Administrator was reviewing a resume for a court clerk's position and the applicant had attached a criminal record check result from a 'national database' provider. Rule # 1. The power of advertising is much greater than the truth. Not one jurisdiction this national database provided results from (can we call them results?) contained an ounce of information from where the applicant had been, ever was, never will be; like give me a break.

Rule #2. Be prepared to hear so much 'bull' that an open door to slip out of never looked so good. Another thing you do want to do is debate a po-lice officer, detective, cop, whatever on criminal re-cords. But here I am, the pot calling the kettle black. The other day I found (rather, put) myself in the position of listening to a long winded argument that this cop knew how to check police databases here and there; that the state system was great, that they check everything, get everything.

OMG! I must have been doing background checks too long. Never mind all the studies showing lack of records, arrestees slipping through , etc. But just when I think I've heard everything here comes the U.S Govern-ment. Recently, I'm working on an immigration case. No matter, that's not impotant. What's important is that we think a little knowledge makes us experts. Talk about arrogance! (maybe mine?)

This government official (actually a nice person) really did believe that she could check online to get the records they need to do a background check. And that's what they do! Sorry to inform you that this government official is the head of a District's im-migration policy. Worse, they might use this information against you or a friend someday. Really, though, I have been proved wrong many times. But, I listen and (hopefully) learn. That is Rule #3. Keep an open mind. (probably Keep Your Mouth Shut should follow!) The hardest thing I find to do is change. After many years of re-petitive work, it all be-comes so routine. But, someone someday will spring something new on me. Always happens. Can't wait. Call me an eternal opti-mist. Happy New Year.



Regarding an artcle enti-tled, "AP IMPACT: When your criminal past isn't yours" http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501366_162-57344346/ap-impact-when-your-criminal-past-isnt-yours/ I'm not sure who the source was, but the com-ment, "It hasn't helped that dozens of databases are now run by mom-and-pop businesses with limited re-sources to monitor the ac-curacy of the records," misses the point as well as BAD MOUTH hard work-ing Americans in the back-ground screening industry. Show me the proof. LET"S LOOK AT THE ISSUE: ALL records are kept in databases. The courts have one. The police have one. What background check-ing company monitors the records of the original sources of records they ac-quire? Why should they? Can't trust the government to keep the record straight? Fact is, when it came to criminal records from the courts, everyone, BIG GUYS, and SMALL FRIES bought from the same sources more times than you imagined. They had a runner (researcher) that searched the databases at a particular court and sent back a report to the company with a clear or found criminal (case) record. Most counties only had a

few (if any) runner/researchers. They were all well known. They were used by almost everyone. The background check companies regularly check (audit) the researchers. They audit their work by sending work to them (knowing what the criminal case record should be - unless it has been ex-punged) and comparing it to their known results. And if a discrepancy is found in a subject's record, to this day, researcher's are asked to do further investi-gation and find perhaps gather additional identify-ing information. But background check companies sending re-searchers KNOWN CASES of IDENTITY THEFT cases or asking to IDEN-TIFY EXPUNGED CASES that aren't expunged from the records and asking re-searchers to sort that mess out? NEVER. Given there are improper USES of DATABASES, the Federal Government has made certain that we know that. It created the FCRA. About a decade ago, The

National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS) was formed. http://www.napbs.com/ The NAPBS gives MOM and POP's the opportunity to share and get informa-tion from the same sources (including the FCRA) as the BIG GUYS. And there are plenty of MOM and POP enterprises that are PAID members of the NAPBS. As a sidebar, if it weren't for background checking companies, the issues of court clerical erors and identity theft might never have come up. Go back more to the late 90's and the identity theft issue started in Ohio with an identity theft, a background checking company, a Sher-iff's Association, and a law-suit. Meanwhile, the back-ground checking industry always relied on the small MOM and POP to gather the criminal records they needed for their reports. The internet changed a lot (but not all) of that with online access to court re-cords. Many small busi-nesses were left without business as the 'big guys' dropped them faster than a hot potato preferring to do

their own online searches instead of paying the few dollars per search that was the going rate at the time. Then came scraping. This is not a new technology. Research would show that the U.S. Court records (PACER) have been scraped for more than a decade by many compa-nies. The use of scraping as a competitive edge by the BIG COMPANIES anxious to please their customers with faster service has made this product what it is today. Smaller MOM and POP's buy their scraping from the BIG GUYS. Scraping actually utilizes the live data provided by the source ( in most cases, by a court). The databases themselves are the problem. There's errors in most all. But it's the correction of inaccurate records where the lawsuits lie. The story even mentions a BIG LAWSUIT: ... "(A) settlement, which received tentative approval from a federal judge in Vir-ginia last month, requires HireRight to pay $28.4 mil-lion to settle allegations that it didn't properly notify people about background

checks and didn't properly respond to complaints about inaccurate files. HIRERIGHT is by no means a SMALL MOM AND POP company. Ex-cept maybe by comparing them to Microsoft or Wal-Mart. I have to consider then as false the assessment that the problem discussed in the article is databases run by MOM and POPS. I take offense at knocking the MOM and POPS of this country. I read the article as a 'correction of error' prob-lem and not a 'scraping or database' issue. Senastionalizing the story did not help protect the in-nocent person harmed by identity thieves or innacu-rate records kept at the originating source. Let's look out for the MOM and POP busi-nesses. I know of one LARGE pre-employment screening company that grew out of their garage. Maybe a software com-pany, coffee company, and a newspaper or two had humble beginnings, too.

CBS Posts AP Report That Gets It Wrong About Background Checks, Continued from front page By Steven Brownstein

Where ‘da file at I was gonna expunge?





Date post:	07-Nov-2014
Category:	Documents
Upload:	steven-brownstein
View:	1,622 times
Download:	0 times

The Background Investigator January 2012 edition

Documents