Modern police work or invasion of privacy?

NOTE: This article was initially posted in June 2019 and has been updated with new and current information.

The Maryland legislature passed a new law in 2021 that further regulates how law enforcement uses commercial DNA databases to identify suspects. With this new law, Maryland joins Utah and Montana as the only states to limit police use of these databases. In 1994, the Maryland legislature passed the Maryland DNA Collection Act which authorized police to gather DNA evidence for certain criminal investigations. The Act was expanded in 2008 to included more crimes but also limited law enforcement from using State databases to search for relatives of a suspect, or familial matches. Maryland is the only state with such a limitation of state run databases.

Maryland’s new law will take effect in October 2021 and bars law enforcement from using commercial DNA databases to look for familial connections. Law enforcement will be required to exhaust all other avenues of identification and then make application to a judge. Police will also have to obtain consent from a person not suspected of a crime before comparing that person’s DNA to commercial databases. 

 

         _________________________________________________________________________________

 

In March 2019, Florida police identified a suspect in a 1998 cold case murder after a man submitted his fingerprints for a job application. Law enforcement had submitted unknown fingerprints from the murder scene to a National database. As fingerprints from crime scenes, criminal arrests, clearance, and background checks are submitted to the database they are checked against the fingerprints on file. Matches are then reported back to the submitting police departments.

Fingerprints

As detailed my blog, “National” Record Checks? there is not a national database of criminal records. There is, however, a database of fingerprints that matches to criminal records of individuals.  Maintained by the FBI and begun in 1924, the database contains the world’s largest database of fingerprints and associated criminal history. Up until 1999, the system was based on the manual collection, submission, and examination. Police would ink up a person’s fingers, roll out the prints on a card, and submit the card to the FBI. There, technicians would painstakingly, individually, examine the prints under magnification and check against known crimes or suspects. After which the cards were filed. When the system became digital it was possible to check the submitted prints against the entirety of the database. Unknown prints found at crime scenes could then been matched against previously submitted prints and suspects developed. If you have ever been fingerprinted your prints are stored in the system and checked against other submissions thousands of time a day. 

The Florida case happened that way. In 1998, police submitted latent prints collected from the murder site. For twenty years every fingerprint submitted to the FBI was checked against the 1998 submission. The killer had avoided being fingerprinted for two decades.

Familial DNA

DNA testing was first developed for use in paternity identification.  Police in England first used DNA in a criminal case in 1986. The first DNA conviction in the U.S. came in 1987. As with any new forensic test, court admissibility was tested early on. Over the years DNA identification has been accepted and the process of collecting and identifying made more efficient. What used to take weeks now only takes days.

In 2018, police and the FBI captured a man suspected of being a serial rapist and murderer in a multitude of cases from forty years ago. The case was broken through the use of DNA. The suspect himself was smart enough not to have his DNA logged into any DNA databases. Smart detectives realized that outside of justice system DNA databases there is a plethora of information being collected by private entities. Ancestral research companies provide DNA collection kits, which allow people to submit their DNA for comparison to other samples in hopes of finding family matches. You guessed it. The profiles are stored in databases so that they can be pinged during searches.

Checking crime scene DNA against public sources of DNA, police were able to get a familial match. That match narrowed the pool of suspects down to one family.  This method has been tagged as “genetic genealogy”.  After the familial match, through traditional police work, detectives were able to identify a suspect. 

Genetic genealogy also works to identify the victims of violent crimes. In 2019, Anne Arundel County Police identified the remains of a man who had been discovered in a trashcan during the construction of Marley Station Mall in 1985. Roger Kelso was believed to have been killed in the 1960s and buried in the woods where the mall would eventually be constructed. Police compared the victim’s DNA to samples in public databases to form the familial match. The long cold case is now active.

The same methods were used to identify the remains of a woman and children found buried in barrels in the woods of Allenstown, New Hampshire in 1985. Although law enforcement had long ago associated the victims to serial killer Terry Rasmussen they had never identified the victims. By using genetic genealogy police in 2019 were able to finally identify the victims as Marlyse Honeychurch and her daughters Sarah McWaters and Marie Vaughn.

As you can imagine privacy watchdogs are all over the issue of law enforcement having access to private sector databases.

Genetic privacy

Ancestry and 23andMe are the largest consumer testing providers. Both companies have policies in place that prevents law enforcement from having direct access to the databases. However, customers of both companies, hoping to grow their family tree, can upload their personal results to public databases. This is where law enforcement has access to the DNA results. Ancestral DNA companies are working to find balances. While they do not want to allow complete access to databases for misdemeanor crimes, companies do allow access for violent crimes. As law enforcement finds success they will rely more on these DNA databases.

Opponents of this kind of police work feel that the use of relatives DNA on public databases constitute unwarranted searches and thus illegal under the Fourth Amendment. State legislatures are paying attention as Maryland and a few others have had bills introduced to bar police from using relatives DNA to track criminals.

Fingerprints, DNA, facial, hair, optical, these are all methods of identifying humans as individuals. All were new sciences at one time. All have made their way through the world’s courts as legal ways of making identifications. They are most certainly other scientific discoveries that will be added to the list. The question is and always has been, Where does the privacy of individuals get compromised in the name of justice?

Synopsis of Maryland gun laws

Maryland gun laws 

The Federal government and each state all have different firearm laws. States do not necessarily have reciprocity. What is permitted in your home state may be a felony in another state. Here is a synopsis of Maryland’s firearm laws based on common concerns. 

·     Maryland has been regulating handguns with background checks and requiring a seven-day waiting period since 1966. Firearms designated as “regulated” (handguns and 45 enumerated rifles) require background checks and a waiting period for being transferred. This includes private sales as well.Shotguns and some rifle sales are not regulated by the State and therefore require no State level background check. 

·     Sales and transfers between private citizens and at gun shows are regulated by the State and require a background check and seven-day wait before transferring.

·     Gun buyers must possess a license before purchasing a firearm, which includes a firearm training course

·     One handgun purchase is allowed every thirty days

·     All new handguns manufactured after January 1, 2003 must include an integrated mechanical safety device

·     Red Flag Law-Enables families and law enforcement to ask courts for an order to temporarily restrict firearms from people found to be a risk t themselves or others. 

·     Assault rifles or “AR15” variants are prohibited from sale

·     Bump stocks are banned in Maryland

·     Convicted domestic abusers are required to surrender guns to law enforcement or a firearms dealer. Law enforcement is permitted to remove firearms from the scene of an alleged act of domestic violence

·     Ammunition: If a person is prohibited from possessing firearms they are prohibited from possessing ammunition

·     Child access- A person may not store or leave a loaded firearm in a location where an unsupervised child may gain access

·     Concealed carry is prohibited unless issued a concealed carry permit regulated by the State

·     Transportation- A person may transport a firearm in a vehicle if unloaded and in an enclosed case or enclosed holster-to and from the place of purchase or repair; shooting range; sporting activities; hunting; dog training.

See also:

How to buy a gun in Maryland?

Can you buy an AR15 in Maryland?

ATF’s list of State laws and ordinances

CONVICTED? NEVER CONVICTED.

Note: This article was originally posted in 2014. It has been updated with new information.

Owning a business investigation company we often had clients who would come to us to perform self-background checks. They had had an indiscretion long ago and wondered if it would appear during an employment background check. Or they had records expunged and wanted to make sure that searches would not reveal the records. Every now and then we would find records that the client swore had been expunged.

The search techniques used and the diligence of the background check company can often uncover records thought to be vaporized by the delete key. As records become more digitized it is increasingly more difficult to erase yourself from the digital world. Just like the picture from a sophomore year party that a friend posted on your favorite social media page, once it’s out there-it’s out there. Removing it can be difficult and time-consuming.

EXPUNGED?

Similar to those unwanted pictures, records of your past, even expunged records, can be found in the digital world. The legal term “expunged” has different definitions in different States. Some allow for the records to be sealed and treat the case as it never happened. Some change the conviction to “dismissed” but the other details of the case are the same. In Maryland, it means to remove from public inspection. Although records are expunged, they are filed somewhere.  

Once you receive an order to have your record expunged and it is served, the judicial system possessing the record will remove it from its online court access. Anyone searching your name would not see the record. Contrary to what the fast working TV detectives would have us believe, there is not one government sourced database of criminal records. Records of arrests and adjudications are kept at the local courthouses and county jurisdictions. The closest to any semblance of a national database is the FBI’s fingerprint database, to which only law enforcement has access. See “National” record checks  Third-party vendors must rely on court reported data offered by State and local governments. 

As with your personal information and shopping habits, court data is downloaded, bought, and sold every day. Vendors collect the data from several sources. As the data is shared and stored and stored again it ends up in narrower access points allowing for the production of a single report.  If the vendor then resells that report, the record moves to another database. You get the idea. Just like the unwanted picture, although expunged from the government files, your record is sitting in who knows how many vendors databases waiting to be accessed.  

REMOVING THE RECORD 

The criminal record you had expunged was downloaded, bought, shared, compiled, stored, all the digital speak long before the record was expunged. The best, and least expensive, way to rid the record from existence is to deal with the source vendor directly. Most companies that deal with personal information are forthright about the data that they dispense and pride themselves on the accuracy, which means they are more than willing to help. Sending them a copy of the expungement order along with a request to have the record removed usually will suffice. The problem is finding all the places where the record is stored. This can be a tedious and long process for the individual. There are companies that will chase the record and do the work for you, but of course, fees are involved.

DISCLOSURE

Cities and states throughout the U.S. have enacted laws banning the criminal history question from employment applications. See Ban the Box 

In October 2018, a Massachusetts criminal justice reform bill went into effect that included further Ban the Box regulation. The new regulations include disclosure of misdemeanor convictions for three years (Previously was five). Also, employers cannot inquire about expunged records. Applicants that have had records expunged may legally answer “no record”.

The bottom line is, job seekers cannot be 100% sure that an expunged record will not turn up in a background search. If unsure, be honest about the existence of a record with the requester. Provide copies of the expungement order when the record is requested. However, know your rights within your state and handle the criminal records question per the law. You may not be required to answer.

Refer to the blog archive for more articles about criminal records in Employment

Ban the box update

NOTE: This post was originally published in August 2016 and has been updated with more recent data.

The Ban the Box movement was initially reviewed in this blog in the 2013 post, Should the box be banned? The movement continues to grow and this blog has updated the progress.
Since the last update in September 2018 there hasn’t been much in the way of new legislation. However, some states are refining their Ban the Box laws. Massachusetts passed a Ban the Box law in 2010, which included private employers when most states have laws only covering State job applications. 

In October 2018, a Massachusetts criminal justice reform bill went into effect that included further Ban the Box regulation. The new regulations include disclosure of misdemeanor convictions for three years instead of five. Employers cannot inquire about expunged records. Applicants that have had records expunged may legally answer “no record”.

While past private employer Ban the Box bills have failed in Colorado (Law already cover State employers), the 2019 legislature may be amenable to idea.

What is “Ban the Box”?

For the last several years there has been a movement to remove from employment applications the “box” that asks the question, “Have you ever been convicted of a crime” or any inquiry about criminal history. What has become known as  “ban the box”, the campaign feels that one’s criminal history should not be a consideration of employment at the time an application is submitted, rather, at a later time during the interview process. It is felt that asking this question on the application reduces the chances of those with criminal records to be employed. Employers should meet applicants first, get to know them, give a chance to explain themselves and then get to the criminal history. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has updated its policies, issuing guidelines in 2012 suggesting that employers wait until after a personal interview before making inquiries about criminal history.

In January 2014, there were fifty-six cities that had “banned the box”. As of September 2018, that list included over 150 cities and counties, and 32 States (Eleven of which have laws that include private employers)

CURRENT STATE LIST

Arizona

California*

Colorado 

Connecticut *

Delaware 

Georgia 

Hawaii*

Illinois*

Indiana

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana 

Maryland 

Massachusetts*

Minnesota*

Missouri 

Nebraska 

Nevada

New Jersey*

New Mexico 

New York 

Ohio 

Oklahoma 

Oregon*

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island* 

Tennessee 

Utah

Vermont*

Virginia 

Washington*

Wisconsin

*States with laws that also cover private employers

The Society for Human Resource Management posted a good article that breaks down laws State by State, which can be viewed at Ban the Box Laws by State and Municipality .

Maryland Ban the Box

            Maryland’s law took effect October 1, 2013, and applies only to State of Maryland employment applications. State government cannot ask about criminal record or criminal history of an applicant until the applicant has been provided an opportunity for an interview. Exempt from the law are positions in the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services. Baltimore passed a similar law in 2014, restricting employers with 10 or more workers from asking a candidate about criminal records until after a conditional employment offer is made.

In 2017, Louisiana became the first state to enact a ban the box law for state institutions. Maryland passed a law in 2017, but the Governor vetoed it. In January 2018, the Maryland legislature overrode the Governor’s veto, reinstating the law.

As the laws regarding criminal history continue to evolve the legislative season is a good time to review your interview and questions and job application content.

Click here for other posts relating to Ban the Box.

Frequently Asked Questions

During my time providing investigative services to businesses the same questions regarding pre employment screenings and background checks were repeatedly asked. To address those questions, we developed a list of frequently asked questions, which are shared below. I hope this will help answer questions you may have and guide you through the hiring process.

·      What are an employer’s legal obligations?

• Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). As of October 1, 1997 the FCRA requires that all employers who request background checks for pre employment screening purposes have a written consent from the applicant. 
• Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII. Employers cannot reject or fire qualified individuals who have criminal records when the criminal history has no bearing on the individual’s fitness or ability to perform the job.
•  Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC. The EEOC is clear in its position on employers’ use of criminal background checks for employee hiring and retention: “Using such records as an absolute measure to prevent an individual from being hired could limit the employment opportunities of some protected groups and thus cannot be used in this way.”
• National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) was enacted in 1935. The Act allows for the National labor Relations Board to enforce laws that give employees the right to act together for improved pay and working conditions, even if they are not part of a union. 

·      What is a “National” record check?

• We were always asked to conduct national criminal record checks. This request is difficult to explain because most people’s perception of the criminal justice system is marred by television. Simply put, there is no “national” database that houses criminal records. Records of arrests and adjudications are kept at the local courthouses and county jurisdictions. Conducting a non-law enforcement national background check would be better said as a “nationwide” check. To obtain a thorough picture of a person’s criminal past, all levels of government entities maintaining criminal records should be searched. Read our post "National" record checks, which further explains the subject.

If there is no national database, how do you get the most detailed information?

• Look for companies that search both public and commercial databases within the Federal, State, and County jurisdictions. Analyzing the information to ensure the utmost accuracy for your screenings.

·      What is “Ban the box”?

• Ban the box is national grassroots movement to remove the question, “Have you ever been convicted of a crime” from employment applications. Many State and local jurisdictions have passed laws removing the question from government employment applications.

·      What is Bright line hiring?

•  “Bright line” is a clearly defined rule or standard, generally used in law, composed of objective factors, which leaves little or no room for varying interpretation. The purpose of a bright-line rule is to produce predictable and consistent results in its application. 
• A Bright line hiring example would be to not hire someone with a criminal record. Bright line hiring practices are dangerous for any business, as you may have violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or EEOC guidelines.

·      Can expunged records be located?

• Sometimes. The legal term “expunged” has different definitions in different states. Some allow for the records to be sealed and treat the case as it never happened. Some change the conviction to “dismissed”, but the other details of the case are the same. In Maryland, it means to remove from public inspection. 
• Although records are expunged, they are filed somewhere.  Third party vendors purchase data from government entities before records are expunged. They then resell that data. Although records get expunged, they remain active through third party vendors.

·      Why should I do pre employment checks?

• Avoid the expense of making a bad hire. Bad hires can cost as much as three times the salary of the job in question
•  Reduce liability: Putting current employees at risk by placing a violent person in the workplace.
• Find those with a propensity for violence. Workplace violence has been found to make up 18% of all crime.
•  Reduce of workplace accidents
•  Reduce resume puffing. One-third of resumes have some degree of puffery
•  Aid the applicant. During the process other names associated with the applicants’ social security number are regularly discovered. This information may help the applicant thwart identity theft.

·      Why can’t I just do checks myself?

• You can and many do. The Internet is a very powerful tool. The questions are: Do you have time? Do you know where to look? Do you know how to decipher the information you do find? Are you sure you are looking at the correct person?

See our blog archive and topic categories for more on this topic.

How well do you know someone? March 2017

Social Media Checks July 2016

FCRwhat? March 2015

Just checking local Internet records not enough December 2014

Convicted? Never convicted. October 2014

Have you ever been convicted of a crime? February 2014

What is the price of not doing a background check July 2013

"National" record checks April 2013

Ban the box

Students say, “Ban the box!”

NOTE: This post was originally published on April 6, 2016 and has been updated with new information.            

On May 26, 2017, Maryland Governor Hogan vetoed a bill that would have barred Maryland colleges from inquiring about criminal history on admission applications. Governor Hogan reasoning the bill, in its current state, was too restrictive on schools and jeopardized student safety.

If passed, Maryland would have been the first state to prohibit all colleges and universities from including questions about criminal history on their applications. Admissions offices could still inquire about criminal convictions of accepted applicants but could not withdraw an offer of admission based on the answer.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Many employment applications include the question, “Have you ever been convicted of a crime”.  For the past several years there has been a movement to have the question removed. Every year legislatures at the State, County, and City level take up the issue of whether or not to “Ban the Box”.  Advocates want job applicants to be considered for their qualifications and not rejected based on criminal past. Should the box be banned, February 2013

Currently there are 100 cities and counties that have passed legislation to have the question removed from their respective government employment applications. Twenty-one states have also passed laws-California (2013, 2010), Colorado (2012), Connecticut (2010), Delaware (2014), Georgia (2015), Hawaii (1998), Illinois (2014, 2013), Maryland (2013), Massachusetts (2010), Minnesota (2013, 2009), Nebraska (2014), New Jersey (2014), New Mexico (2010), New York (2015), Ohio (2015), Oklahoma (2016), Oregon (2015), Rhode Island (2013), Vermont (2015), Virginia (2015), and Wisconsin (2016). Seven of those states (Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, and Rhode Island) have removed the question from private employment applications as well.

            The Common App college admissions application has over 500 member education institutions and has been in use since the late 1990’s. Since the 2006-2007 admissions cycle the Common App has also included a question as to whether or not the applicant had been convicted of a misdemeanor or felony. The applicant answers yes or no and is required to submit a separate explanation if there is a conviction.

            On March 29, 2016, students from New York University (NYU) staged a sit-in to demand that the school stop receiving the criminal question data from the Common App. Although no immediate changes were made, the NYU administration and the CEO of the Common App met with the students. Much like the advocates for employment purposes, college applicants want to be considered first on their merits and not excluded because of criminal convictions.

            As the Ban the Box movement has steadily gained traction in employment circles, you can expect the issue to continue be brought up on college campuses as well.

See our blog archive for other posts relating to Ban the Box:

Should the box be banned-February 2013

MD Ban the box-May 2013

Have you ever been convicted of a crime? -February 2014

How well do you know someone?

Watching the vetting process for the new presidential cabinet you heard politicians and others vouching for the nominees.  They would qualify their knowledge of the person’s background by stating how long they’ve known the person, “I’ve known this person for five years.” Really? Five whole years?

There is the possibility that you can really get to know someone in a short span of time. But it is highly unlikely, especially if you’re not with the person 24/7. There have been incidents of husbands and wives, who have been married for more than a decade, not knowing of the others “secret” life. So how can you vouch for a person, you have known for five years, and periodically interact with? If your “friend” is forty and you’ve known them for five, or even ten years, that seems like an eternity. However, they’ve had twenty-two years of adulthood before you ever met them.

Then you have the now cliché neighbor of a crime suspect, “[He’s] always been a good neighbor. Quiet. Never bothered anyone.” Chances are the neighbor is basing their assessment on fact. They never really knew the suspect so, of course, they were quiet and never bothered anyone.

If a background investigator has ever contacted you regarding an investigation for a security clearance how well you know someone can become shockingly evident. People obtaining security clearances fill out a questionnaire, part of which includes references. These references have to be non-work, friends and neighbors. Sometimes you have no idea why your name was used. You hardly know the person. But sometimes the investigation is for someone you’ve “known” for ten or more years (Most backgrounds require the reference to be a person you’ve known for five or more). But you don’t hang out with them, you don’t interact socially, you lose touch. But here is your name as a reference. The investigator starts asking the standard questions and you realize that although you’ve known this person since college, you cannot provide one piece of information that can verify anything about the person’s proclivity for cheese or espionage.

So to stand before a congressional committee and state that, “I’ve known this person for five years and they have absolutely the best character”, is little bit of a stretch.

See our blog archive for other posts relating to character association: 

Don’t want to know July 24, 2013

Have you ever been convicted of a crime February 3, 2014

Health history discrimination

What an employer asks on employment applications regarding criminal history and how it is used, has long been scrutinized by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). In recent years when an employer asks about criminal history has been at issue (Should the box be banned, February 4, 2013). Employers are also getting caught on health history questions, although the EEOC has been monitoring that form of discrimination for over twenty years.

EEOC and ADA

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII, made it illegal to discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The EEOC was created in 1965 to enforce the Civil Rights Act but had to authority. In 1972, Congress gave the EEOC litigation enforcement authority. The American with Disabilities Act was passed in 1990 and the EEOC was given enforcement authority over Title I of the Act, which includes the employment discrimination provisions. The ADA places restrictions on employers regarding asking job applicants to answer medical questions.

EEOC v. Grisham Farm Products, Inc.

In a recent case the EEOC, on March 22, 2016, filed suit in the United States District Court against Grisham Farm Products, Inc. alleging that its employment application violated the ADA. (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Grisham Farm Products, Inc. 16-cv-03105)

In the case, an applicant applied for a warehouse position at Grisham. The Grisham job application contained forty-three “yes or no” health related questions. The questions were similar to what would be seen on an initial doctor visit. The Grisham application inquired whether in the past ten years the applicant has had allergies, arthritis, bladder infections, eating disorders, gallstones, sexually transmitted diseases, etc. The application also inquired about prior hospitalizations, HIV infection, treatment for alcoholism, and whether the applicant consulted a doctor, chiropractor, therapist, or other health care provider in the past two years.

The application’s Health History section stated in large letters, “All questions must be answered before we can process your application”. The applicant did not answer all of the questions and telephoned Grisham Farm. A company representative said that if the health history section was not fully completed, it would not be accepted.

The EEOC claims that the applicant believed he did not have to reveal his medical history to any potential employer. The case is still in litigation.

Review your hiring process

Employers should be frequently reviewing their hiring process. They also need to follow EEOC decisions as these decisions occur frequently and affect the hiring process. As with questions regarding criminal history, there are parameters as to what health questions can be asked and when they can be asked. The EEOC is clear that pre-employment health inquiries can be made only after a conditional offer has been made, if the inquiries are made to all applicants for that job category, and the inquiries are job related and consistent with a business necessity.



May 9, 2016-The EEOC released it's latest guidance on leave as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA. Employer-Provided Leave and the Americans with Disabilities Act

A good interview

The interview is a major part of the hiring process. In addition to being encouraged by the EEOC, it gives the employer a chance to get a feel for the applicant’s character and a chance for the applicant to be forthright about their resume and anything in their past that may pertain to the job for which they are applying.  If there is a discrepancy, than a chance to elaborate.

We have clients that are not surprised by the findings of screenings, because they have conducted thorough interviews and learned of past indiscretions prior to conducting a screening. Sometimes though the applicant downplays, tries to hides, or refutes an incident. That is when a more detailed examination of the facts needs to takes place. 

Criminal record findings are based on the personal data supplied by the client. The results are not verification of the record. Once the person is identified with the record the original court records should be retrieved for actual verification.  Life is not as television would have us believe. There is not a single repository for criminal records. Records are not always found in the employers home State. To locate any and all records, queries should be made Federal, State, and even local courts.  ("National" record checks)

Here are some examples of how criminal records work with a good interview. Why are these special? It’s what they didn’t and did tell their prospective employers that makes the point. All were interviewed prior to the request for a pre employment screening. Some were forthright and explained past indiscretions. Others rolled the dice. 

• Fully aware and consenting to a pre employment screening, the applicant admitted to being arrested for possession of marijuana during college, a lesser offense. When the results returned multiple counts of more serious offenses, the applicant continued to deny the convictions. State (Not Maryland) and county record searches revealed more serious charges, but experience tells us that sometimes the charges read more serious than the actual event. Further research of local court records revealed that the charges were accurate. The applicant was arrested and convicted of selling drugs to an undercover detective. A little more than mere possession.
• The applicant said nothing of past criminal activity. Searches revealed multiple felony drug arrests and convictions. However, FCRA guidelines prohibit the use of criminal records more than seven years old in consumer reports. The deal breaker on this one was not the criminal record but truthfulness and character. The applicant arrived at the interview with an apparent injury saying that he was currently on medical leave, expected to return. During employment verification it was learned from the employer that the applicant was fired weeks before for skimming money.
• Maryland and out of State searches revealed no records for the applicant. However, our routine searches of the Federal court system revealed past arrests. Again, FCRA regulations prohibited the reporting of the records. When the report was provided the client said that the applicant had admitted to the past federal charges during the interview process. The client wasn’t worried about the long ago indiscretions, but was more impressed with the applicant’s honesty and character.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission suggests that the report be presented to the applicant and the applicant allowed a chance to address the findings of the report. Before a decision of hiring is made. Allowing the applicant to talk about themselves can yield a wealth of information about the prospective employee. Allowing them a chance to honestly represent their past or defend the findings can yield much more.

Mazzella Investigative Solutions-Services