Criminal Record Research Standards

Scope should be established before research begins, because it is determined by what the client ordered, what the reporting purpose supports, and what the law permits rather than by what the results turn out to contain.

• Establish which jurisdictions will be searched. Address history supplies the list, and it should include every county of residence within the period covered rather than only the current one.
• Establish the period the search covers. Reporting limits and client requirements both constrain how far back a search extends, and they will not always produce the same answer. The shorter of the two governs the search.
• Establish which record types are in scope. Felonies, misdemeanors, and pending cases are separate categories, and a client may order some and not others. Infractions, traffic matters, and municipal violations should be addressed when scope is defined rather than decided while a file is open.
• Gather identifiers before searching. Full legal name, former names, date of birth, and address history determine both where to search and whether the results can be used once they return.

A criminal record exists only where the case was filed, so the search should reach every level of court in which a case involving the consumer could have been brought.

• County courts. Most felony and misdemeanor cases are filed and maintained at the county level, which makes the county court the primary source for the majority of records. Some states organize these courts by district, parish, or judicial circuit, and the equivalent unit should be identified before the search is placed.
• State courts and repositories. Many states maintain a central criminal repository that receives case and disposition data from courts and law enforcement agencies. Coverage depends on those agencies reporting into the system, so completeness varies by state and by county within a state.
• Federal district courts. Federal offenses are prosecuted in federal district court and do not appear in county records at all. The districts searched should cover where the consumer lived, worked, or was arrested during the period.
• Tribal courts. Tribal courts operate independently of state systems and generally do not report into them. They are relevant when the consumer has ties to tribal land or a tribal community.
• Military courts. Courts martial records apply when the consumer served in the Armed Forces, and they are maintained separately from civilian court systems.

Additional jurisdictional research is warranted whenever the file develops a location the original scope did not include:

• Extend the search when a record points to another jurisdiction. A case file may show an arrest in a different county, a transfer, probation supervised elsewhere, or a prior offense referenced at sentencing. Each of those identifies a jurisdiction that the address history did not.
• Extend the search when identifiers develop new locations. A Social Security number trace, an undisclosed address, or a former name may add jurisdictions after the initial list was set.
• Extend the search when a database hit falls outside the counties searched. A hit in a county that was not on the list is a reason to search that county, not a reason to report the hit.

The authoritative source for a criminal record is the court where the case was filed, and every other source is derived from it.

• Treat the court as the source of record. Court websites, clerk offices, public access terminals, and official state repositories hold the record itself. Anything that reaches the report should trace back to one of them.
• Treat a database hit as a pointer rather than as a record. A commercial database indicates that a record may exist somewhere. It offers no assurance that the disposition shown is current, that the charge language matches the court’s, or that the entry belongs to the consumer.
• Verify every database hit at the source jurisdiction before reporting it. What the court currently shows is what is reported, in the court’s own terms. A hit that cannot be confirmed at the court should not be reported on the strength of the database alone.
• Do not treat the absence of a database hit as a clear search. Database coverage varies by county, by court level, and by date range, and some jurisdictions do not contribute at all. A clear database result establishes only that nothing was found in that database.
• Confirm that the source searched is the official one for the jurisdiction and record type. Some courts contract public access to a vendor, and some publish an index that omits categories of cases. Knowing what a source covers is what makes a clear result meaningful.

A name match identifies a record worth examining and does not establish whose record it is.

• Match on multiple identifiers. Weigh each identifier according to what it establishes, and apply the same standard to every file rather than adjusting it to the record in front of you.
• Investigate a conflict rather than accepting a near match. A near match treated as a match will be indistinguishable from a mismatch once a dispute arrives.
• Order case file research when identifiers are limited. Many courts will provide identifiers the public index does not carry, which is the ordinary way a common name is resolved.
• Do not report a record that cannot be matched. When the available identifiers will not connect the record to the consumer, it stays off the report.

A matched record still has to be read correctly, and what the court file currently states is what is reported, in the terms the court uses.

• Confirm each charge separately. A case carrying several charges can resolve differently on each one, and reporting a single outcome for the case will misstate what happened. Record the charge as filed, the charge as resolved, and the offense level.
• Report the disposition the court currently shows. The disposition is the outcome of the charge and carries more weight than any other element of the record. Where the file shows an entry made after an earlier one, the later entry is the current disposition.
• Report a pending case as pending. A case with no disposition entered is an accusation that has not been resolved. It should carry the filing date and the charge, with no language that suggests an outcome.
• Record sentencing separately from the disposition. Fines, incarceration, probation, suspended sentences, and diversion terms describe what followed the disposition rather than replacing it. A sentence of probation does not convert a conviction into something else, and completing a diversion program does not change the disposition unless the court entered a new one.
• Note amended charges. A charge reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor, or amended to a different offense, resolves as the amended charge. Reporting the original charge next to the amended disposition presents the case as more serious than the court resolved it to be.
• Distinguish among dismissals, acquittals, and convictions. Dismissed, nolle prosequi, acquitted, and no true bill are separate outcomes with separate meanings. The court’s own term should carry into the report rather than a summary of what it seems to mean.
• Check for vacated, set aside, and reversed judgments. A judgment vacated by the trial court or reversed on appeal is no longer the outcome of the case. A source that captured the record before that entry will still display the original judgment.
• Identify records that have been expunged, sealed, or pardoned. These may be restricted from reporting even though the identity match is correct, and a commercial source may continue to display them long after the order was entered. What each of those terms means, and what it restricts, is determined by the law of the jurisdiction that granted it.
• Use the court’s own terminology. Offense descriptions and disposition language vary by jurisdiction, and translating them into a standard vocabulary introduces error into the report.

A record that is accurate and correctly matched may still not be reportable, and restrictions should be checked before the record enters the report rather than after a dispute arrives.

• Federal time limits. Under FCRA § 1681c(a)(2), civil suits, civil judgments, and records of arrest are limited to 7 years from date of entry or until the governing statute of limitations expires, whichever is the longer period. Section FCRA § 1681c(a)(5) applies the same 7 year limit to other adverse items, expressly excluding records of conviction.
• The salary exception. Section FCRA § 1681c(b)(3) removes those limits where the position pays, or may reasonably be expected to pay, $75,000 or more. Where the client has not established that the threshold is met, the limits apply.
• State restrictions. Some states shorten the lookback period, prohibit categories of records outright, or apply their limits regardless of salary. Where state and federal law differ, the stricter rule applies.
• Local ordinances. Some cities and counties restrict what an employer may ask about and consider beyond what state law requires. These restrictions bind the employer rather than the CRA, and they shape what a client is able to act on.

Criminal records change after they are collected. Cases are filed, dispositions are entered, judgments are vacated, and records are sealed, so a result is accurate only as of the date it was verified.

FCRA § 1681k applies directly here. When a CRA furnishes a report for employment purposes containing public record information likely to have an adverse effect on the consumer, it must either notify the consumer that the information is being reported, at the time it is reported, along with the name and address of the user, or maintain strict procedures designed to ensure that the information is complete and up to date. Under FCRA § 1681k(a)(2), a conviction item is up to date when it reflects the current public record status.

• Re-verify the disposition before the report is released when time has passed since the search, because a court can enter a disposition between the date searched and the date furnished.
• Establish a currency standard defining how old a search result may be before it is run again, and apply it to every file rather than only to the files that raise a question.
• Run the search again when new information develops. A newly disclosed address, a former name, or a jurisdiction identified inside another record may call for research the original scope did not cover.
• Use continuous monitoring where the arrangement supports it. Ongoing employment and licensing decisions can support recurring reports, which depend on a permissible purpose that continues after hire and on authorization that covers ongoing reporting.

A dispute, an audit, or litigation will ask where a record came from and what was done with it. Undocumented research cannot be defended, even when it was performed correctly.

Record the following for every search:

• The jurisdictions searched, the source used, the date searched, and the method
• The identifiers used to match each record
• Any additional research ordered and what it returned
• Negative results, which establish that the search was actually conducted
• Records reviewed and not reported, with the reason

Records reviewed and not reported belong in the documentation. They demonstrate that the standard was applied to the whole search rather than only to the records that were ultimately reported.