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?

Maryland bans the box

Maryland Bans the Box for private employers

NOTE: This article was initially posted in May 2013 and has been updated with new and current information.

As you may know, Ban the Box refers to removing the criminal convictions question from employment applications. Preferring that any discussion of criminal histories be done further along in the application process and in person. Hoping to make the process fairer for applicants.

In October of 2013, Maryland’s first Ban the Box law took effect. The law removed the criminal conviction question from State employment applications. At that time, there were only seven states with similar legislation.  Since then the Ban the Box movement has swept the nation with cities, counties, and states enacting laws. According to the National Employment Law Project, as of July 2019, there were thirty-five states and one hundred and fifty cities and counties that have Ban the Box laws. Thirteen states have laws that prohibit private employers from asking about criminal history on the application. As of January 1, 2020, Maryland became the fourteenth.

Maryland Private Employer law takes effect January 2020

The Maryland legislature passed a private employer Ban the Box law in 2019 only to have the law vetoed by the Governor. In one of the first acts of the 2020 legislature, the Maryland General Assembly voted to override the veto.

The new law states that, before the first in person interview, employers may not ask an applicant to disclose details about whether or not a criminal record exists. This law only applies to those employers with fifteen or more employees too include seasonal, temporary, and contractual employees.

So far only a few major corporations, such as Target and Walmart, have publically “Banned the box”.

Details of the laws procession through the legislative process can be found at http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Legislation/Details/hb0994/?ys=2019rs

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

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

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

Have you been convicted of a crime?

Screening job applicants to find the most qualified for the job is becoming more difficult. In addition to skills and qualifications, employers are under pressure to also consider safety for their current employees by not introducing a potentially violent person to the work environment. Employers conduct pre employment screenings, which include criminal records, to provide them with the information necessary to make those decisions. However, most employers fall into the trap of making decisions based on the findings of the screening, and not the qualifications or character of the applicant. This type of hiring practice can open the employer to litigation and sanctions from Federal authorities.

Law enforcement strategies of the past twenty years has gone through different variants of zero tolerance policing and stricter enforcement of quality of life crimes. Then there is the ongoing war on drugs. These strategies have increased the chance that employers will encounter an applicant with some sort of criminal record. It is becoming the rarity, rather than the norm, that applicants would have no involvement in the criminal justice system.

A recent study published in the journal Crime and Punishment addressed the number of young people who have some sort of arrest record, other than traffic. The findings were based on an annual Bureau of labor Statistics survey of 7000 young people who answered questions between 1997 and 2008. The authors found that 49% of African American men, 44% of Hispanic men, and 38% of Caucasian men have been arrested by the age of 23. For women the numbers were slightly lower-20% African American, 18% Caucasian, and 18% Hispanic.

Ban the box

The “Ban the Box” movement advocates the removal of the employment application question, “Have you ever been convicted of a crime”. Advocates would rather the applicant have the opportunity for a face-to-face interview before the discussion of criminal records or background checks take place. Ten states currently have statewide “ban the box” laws for public employment applications. Of these ten states, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Rhode Island have banned the box for private employers as well.

There are currently fifty-six jurisdictions in twenty-two states that have enacted ban the box laws. This number is growing annually, in November 2012 there were forty-six. These jurisdictions in the Mid-Atlantic region have enacted laws: Maryland, Baltimore, Wilmington, DE, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, Newport News, Norfolk, Portsmouth, Richmond.

Corporations are beginning to catch on also. In October 2013, Minnesota based Target Corporation enacted policy that removes the criminal question from their application.

The Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC) has endorsed the idea of “banning the box”. The EEOC is clear in its position on employers’ use of criminal background checks for employee hiring and retention, stating, “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.” The EEOC specifically addresses the consideration of criminal records in its updated Enforcement Guidance published in 2012. The guidelines suggest that employers consider the nature of the job, the seriousness of the offense, and the length of time since the offense occurred. Also, employers should include an individualized assessment that allows the applicant to speak to the circumstances of the record. The EEOC is specific that criminal records only be used as they pertain to the job being sought and cannot be used against an individual without the consideration of other factors.

Banning is a strong word and does not mean that employers cannot view criminal records during the hiring process. Employers do have to be educated on how the records are used. Realizing the difference between an arrest and conviction and understanding the EEOC guidelines and Fair Credit Reporting Act as they apply to hiring will keep employers from incorrect use of records.  

The evolving school of thought is that criminal records be discussed after the personal interview and review of qualifications. An established hiring process and detailed documentation as to the decisions made all go a long way in supporting the employer’s final assessments.

Stranger danger

When someone knocks at the door, most people are very guarded as to how they answer. Either cracking the door or speaking through a storm door, we don’t let random strangers into our homes. However, because we pay a company for a service we allow strangers into our homes. We are so guarded as to our Internet privacy, yet we allow complete strangers to be alone in our homes. Once the worker arrives, are you the type of customer that follows them around, or do you leave them alone to do their work? Many people don’t feel comfortable looking over the shoulder of the worker, but maybe you should.

Take into account a few stories from the headlines.

•  2011-Anne Arundel County Police raided a Pasadena home and charged the owner of a cleaning service with theft. Police recovered thousands of dollars worth of jewelry that had been allegedly stolen from clients
• 2011-Milford, CT home contractor sexually assaulted client
• 2012-Maryland housecleaner was caught stealing jewelry from clients
•  2012-Hamptons, NY dog walker caught stealing jewelry from clients
• 2012-Missouri landscaper stole $200,000 worth of jewelry from clients
• 2013-NJ satellite installer sexually assaulted a client’s child
• 2013-NH home care provider kidnapped and sexually assaulted male client

TODAY National Investigative Correspondent Jeff Rossen reported that no law requires background checks for service workers. Yet, we allow them, alone, into our homes without questioning the company’s policies. After a service worker murdered her daughter, Lucia Bone began a company fighting for tougher restrictions. The full article can be viewed at our Information and resources page.

Employers have to walk a fine line when hiring and protecting their company from lawsuit, either for an improper hiring process or later injury to a client. EEOC guidelines protects against discrimination in the hiring process. One of those protections specifically addresses criminal background records and the records use in the hiring process. The applicant should be judged on their resume not their past criminal history. Unless an employer can show a reason why the applicant’s specific conviction, not their record in total, would disqualify them from the job the employer is discouraged from using the applicant’s record against them. 

This is not a bad thing. National Institute of Justice studies revealed that one-third of all Americans have been arrested by age 23. With those kinds of numbers employers are bound to encounter applicants with criminal histories. To assist in the rehabilitation process some companies hire applicants recently released from prison and there are benefits from doing so. Many former prisoners are highly skilled or are freshly trained for specific jobs. Giving them a start helps them build their resume for life after prison. A company should be forthright to its customers regarding their hiring policies and screening process for the employees that will be coming to customers homes.

Background checks for certain professions are needed. Specifically, when the employee privately interacts with the customer or is alone in the customer’s home. EEOC guidelines do allow for the employer to screen candidates. As long as the job specifications as clearly stated, the applicant is afforded ample time to explain, and the reasons for denial are well documented. Companies can bolster customer confidence by providing them with certification that employees have been checked.

Hiring the wrong person puts a great liability on a company.  Either from internal issues/violence or if that employee causes harm to a customer. There are no crystal balls that predict how or when an employee will go bad. There are numerous incidents of people with no criminal past being tempted while on the job to commit some sort of crime. Some carry a motive for the crime they only await the opportunity. Following EEOC guidelines on the use of criminal records allows the employer to make informed decisions on hiring and candidate placement. By conducting background checks and putting the right person in the right position, companies are doing their due diligence to protect the client against a criminal act.

Mazzella-Investigative Solutions

What is the price of not doing a background check?

As a business owner what is the price of not doing your due diligence in regards to employment screening? Is it the expense of making a bad hire and then paying for benefits, training, maybe uniforms? Poor hiring decisions can sometimes add up to three times the salary of the job. Maybe it’s not recognizing that the applicant exaggerated qualifications on their resume. Recent surveys have shown that at least one-third of all resumes have some degree of embellishment.  As the job market gets tighter, applicants will become more desperate to get their resumes thru the electronic filters and to the top of the stack. Not discovering that the applicant has a propensity for violence can result in difficulties in supervising the employee or worse, dealing with a workplace violence incident and the aftermath of legal claims.

Businesses have to follow strict hiring guidelines established by the EEOC, FCRA, and States, while still having the responsibility to provide a safe workplace and hiring the most qualified person. The courts are beginning to see litigation against businesses for improper hiring practices or administrative actions when an employee causes harm. In February 2013, a cabdriver employed by an Alexandria, VA cab company shot and wounded an Alexandria police officer during a traffic stop. The officer is suing the cab company for $10 million in total damages for negligent hiring and negligent entrustment. During the four years the driver was employed and prior years, he had been charged and/or convicted of several violations.

•  Failure to obey a traffic signal, 2007
• Speeding, 2009
• Failure to pay attention, 2012
• Failure to obey a highway sign, 2012
• Tampering with a vehicle, 2011
• Speeding, 2007
• Failure to wear seat belt, 2007
• Failure to pay full time and attention, 2010
• Speeding, 2011
• Failure to obey a traffic signal, 2013
• Violation of good behavior on a misdemeanor offense
• Illegal sale of unapproved equipment
• Misdemeanor assault, 2011

These charges appear to be traffic related in nature and do not show any indication of violent behavior. The case has not been adjudicated or the arguments published so we do not yet know how the driver’s traffic record plays into the act of violence. It does seem that a company hiring this person as a driver should have more closely scrutinized his driving record or have documented reasoning as to why he was hired in lieu of such a record. While the outcome is yet to be determined, the company is having the expense of defending its hiring practice in preparation for court.

It is easier to defend sound, documented reasoning than to have no defense at all. In the hiring of drivers, people feel that driving records are secondary to skill or familiarity. More than once I have heard the excuse, “If we checked records we wouldn’t have any drivers” or “ We only hire people we know”.  Say that to a jury while clicking your heels and maybe the lawsuit will disappear.

With governments converting more data to digital formats and becoming more open with their records, employers also get caught in the Internet trap.  They feel that they can check records themselves. In a recent blog "National" records checks?, April 11, 2013", I explained the process of criminal record data collection and availability. There is no national database for all criminal records and certainly not a single place where you can find all driving records. So employers who feel that they can simply check their State’s available records are potentially missing huge amounts of data about their prospective employee. Data that you can be sure will be revealed in court.

Also necessary is to properly identify the applicant. Not that they are using their twin for the interview, but that they are who they say they are. Many people, either to avoid detection or for personal taste, use different names or variations of their given name. Depending on the situation, whether it is financial or judicial, the name variations can result in different returns during searches. This may not be discovered unless the background check itself reveals the name variations. The DIY employers would miss this.

Pre employment screening is more than a quick check of an applicant’s criminal record. The employer has to have a thorough process that is used equally, fairly, and within hiring guidelines. Many factors go into selecting the correct applicant for the job. Selecting the wrong candidate will cost the employer. You wouldn't buy a used car without having it checked by an authorized mechanic. Why risk your business by not "checking" your employees before hiring them? 
What are you willing to pay for hiring the wrong person? As they say, everyone has their price. What is yours?

Mazzella-Investigative Solutions-Services

"National" record checks?

We are always asked about conducting 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. The closest to any semblance of a national database is the FBI’s fingerprint database, which was introduced in 1924. However, the FBI system is a repository of fingerprints submitted by law enforcement used for identification purposes, not a criminal record database. Criminal records are associated with the fingerprint files and one can obtain someone’s criminal record, but only to the extent that the data is submitted. The computer adage, garbage in-garbage out applies here.

The FBI is fed fingerprints by law enforcement. If a law enforcement agency doesn’t submit fingerprints on a particular individual or at all, then there is no record. If the fingerprints are unreadable, then there is no record. The submission of the fingerprints also includes the criminal charges associated with why the individual was arrested. This is the part that makes up the criminal record database. This part can be flawed also. If the fingerprints were not submitted each and every time the person is arrested, then there would be gaps in the person’s history. Additionally, only the arrest charges are submitted with the fingerprints, not the disposition of the case. So, that part is missing from the records.

            This is not to say that the FBI fingerprint system is not the best in the world, which it is, and the records are highly reliable. The point being made is that the fingerprint system being used for criminal record checks does have holes. Further, only law enforcement has access.

Conducting a national background check in private industry would be better said as a “nationwide” check. States do a fair job of collecting data from within the state and compiling the data in one repository. However, there is, again, the submission issue. Not all counties, cities, or towns submit arrest and conviction data to the State.

There are data mining services that will search all of the available State and County records and compile the results in to one report. The word “available” is used because not all states and counties make their records accessible to free public inspection. Additional fees and access are needed. More holes in the record search process.

Even with the use of fingerprints, state and county records should be researched to obtain a thorough background check. Even after these computer searches are made and records are found does not mean that what you have is 100% accurate. Your search needs to be verified through actual court records. Which are maintained in the courthouses.

Then you have the Federal judicial system, which is separate from all others. Records are housed in this system’s database as well and require separate searches from all the others. Federal searches are not usually included in most pay services.

Sometimes the records that are received from one source are incomplete, but another source has different information from the same incident. In this case the information from both sources needs to be verified and combined.

To obtain a thorough picture of a person’s criminal past, all levels of government entities maintaining criminal records should be searched. Additionally, the records need to be associated with the offender. This is where the use of fingerprints to ensure the identity of the person associated with the record is helpful. If not through fingerprints, then matches on name and numerical identifiers have to be used to verify the record is associated with the person.

Expunged records are another issue and topic for another blog. Let’s just say that, as with all legal terms, expunged has different definitions in different States; meaning that records of “expunged” cases can be found in the digital world.

Criminal records are just one part of a detailed background check. As you can see, it is not as easy as typing in a person’s name and getting back a complete report of criminal history. To be accurate and completed properly, a lot of searching and analysis goes into the process.