Background check disclosure policy

[Lighthaven1241]

Jurisdiction

Washington

I recently went through the background check for a job, the results came back with an active warrant dating back to 2001, I called the sheriff's office and county court office of the issuing warrants and they kept telling me I have no active warrant, I also called 3 years ago inquiring about some old charges that got dismissed, they also told me I have no warrants or criminal charges pending. I am wondering if the courts would intentionally do this or if it was just an oversight that happened several times. I live across country from the state and now have to turn myself in. Turning myself in does not bother me, it is my concern that something bad may happen while in custody.

 

[adjusterjack]

Hire a lawyer in the state where the warrant is. If it truly is a mistake, he should be able to clear it up without you having to turn yourself in.

 

[army judge]

What is the alleged warrant ALLEGEDLY charging you with doing?

In many cases, if the warrant is for a lower level felony, the charging agency won't extradite the person if they're farther than 100 miles away, or in another state that doesn't border the state holding the warrant.

An attorney in the county holding the warrant could likely dispense of the matter, untangling any confusion, for less than $500.

 

[Lighthaven1241]

The warrant is in my name the charge is not. I am going to turn myself in.
My concern is that for a few years now the sheriff's department and county court system were telling me I do not have a warrant for my arrest or any charges pending. After careful contemplation on the matter, I have come to believe that it is not a simple oversight or technical issue with the electronic system. Why would a legal system and it's enforcement arm mislead someone attempting to clear matters up? The warrant is 21 years old and I never knew it existed.


The warrant is a felony complaint warrant

 

[army judge]

Why would a legal system and it's enforcement arm mislead someone attempting to clear matters up?

You should ask your defense attorney.

In time, I'm sure all of your issues will be resolved.

 

[Lighthaven1241]

I have had an active felony warrant for 21 years and did not know it. For the past 5 years I have had a lot of problems in employment and apartment building issues. Are companies obligated by law to tell you, if you have adverse information on your record? Can they hire you without telling you about outstanding warrants? I have been treated very badly at jobs and my old apartment building and could never figure out why.


I turned myself in and was released next day. I am optimistic the case will be dismissed, I am not optimistic about the future due to past employers and landlord knowing this information and not telling me, but continuing to harass me an invade my privacy 100%

 

[adjusterjack]

What happened to you was unfortunate, but if you are asking if you can successfully sue somebody and punish them by getting their money, the answer is no.

After you get the charges resolved, look into getting the records expunged so they don't appear in the future.

 

[Tax Counsel]

I have had an active felony warrant for 21 years and did not know it. For the past 5 years I have had a lot of problems in employment and apartment building issues. Are companies obligated by law to tell you, if you have adverse information on your record? Can they hire you without telling you about outstanding warrants? I have been treated very badly at jobs and my old apartment building and could never figure out why.

I disagree with Jack's answer. The federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) limits the information that may be contained in a report obtained from a consumer reporting agency (CRA). Most of the adverse information on a consumer report (which is defined to include more than credit reports -- employment background checks fall under the act, too) are limited to adverse actions that occurred within the last 7 years. Criminal convictions do not have a time limit, but pre conviction criminal information like arrests, filing of charges, warrants, etc are subject to that 7 year limit. When an employer or creditor intends to use a third party background check (like a credit report) in making its decision to hire you or extend you credit the creditor/employer must disclose that fact to the applicant and get written permission from the consumer to obtain that report. If the employer/creditor denies employment/credit in part based on an item in a consumer report, the employer/creditor must disclose that fact to you, give you a copy of the report, and a copy of your rights to contest the adverse item if it is not accurate. If a CRA, employer, or creditor violates the FCRA you may sue for either statutory damages of up to $1,000 per violation or your actual damages. In addition to the damages, you may be awarded your attorney's fees, too.

Reporting a warrant from 2001 on a consumer report to be used for employment purposes would almost certainly violate the FCRA since that adverse action was taken much longer than 7 years ago. Note that if charges were filed and then dismissed years later, it is the date the charges were filed that starts the 7 year time running, not the dismissal, per a recent federal appeals court decision. So getting a dismissal now cannot be reported on your CRA as the dismissal doesn't count.

You may want to see an attorney who litigates FCRA cases to see if you might have a case worth pursuing. Since you can get attorney's fees included in the award, it can be worthwhile to hire the attorney even to get a statutory damage award of $1,000. You just want to be sure that your case has a pretty good chance to succeed or you may be stuck paying attorney's fees yourself if you lose. Discuss with the attorney exactly how the fee agreement works if you win and if you lose so you are clear on what you might be liable for. You might want to talk to more than one attorney.

You'll also want to contact the CRA that provided the report to contest that old warrant information and ask that it be removed immediately.

 

[Redemptionman]

I disagree with Jack's answer. The federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) limits the information that may be contained in a report obtained from a consumer reporting agency (CRA). Most of the adverse information on a consumer report (which is defined to include more than credit reports -- employment background checks fall under the act, too) are limited to adverse actions that occurred within the last 7 years. Criminal convictions do not have a time limit, but pre conviction criminal information like arrests, filing of charges, warrants, etc are subject to that 7 year limit. When an employer or creditor intends to use a third party background check (like a credit report) in making its decision to hire you or extend you credit the creditor/employer must disclose that fact to the applicant and get written permission from the consumer to obtain that report. If the employer/creditor denies employment/credit in part based on an item in a consumer report, the employer/creditor must disclose that fact to you, give you a copy of the report, and a copy of your rights to contest the adverse item if it is not accurate. If a CRA, employer, or creditor violates the FCRA you may sue for either statutory damages of up to $1,000 per violation or your actual damages. In addition to the damages, you may be awarded your attorney's fees, too.

Reporting a warrant from 2001 on a consumer report to be used for employment purposes would almost certainly violate the FCRA since that adverse action was taken much longer than 7 years ago. Note that if charges were filed and then dismissed years later, it is the date the charges were filed that starts the 7 year time running, not the dismissal, per a recent federal appeals court decision. So getting a dismissal now cannot be reported on your CRA as the dismissal doesn't count.

You may want to see an attorney who litigates FCRA cases to see if you might have a case worth pursuing. Since you can get attorney's fees included in the award, it can be worthwhile to hire the attorney even to get a statutory damage award of $1,000. You just want to be sure that your case has a pretty good chance to succeed or you may be stuck paying attorney's fees yourself if you lose. Discuss with the attorney exactly how the fee agreement works if you win and if you lose so you are clear on what you might be liable for. You might want to talk to more than one attorney.

You'll also want to contact the CRA that provided the report to contest that old warrant information and ask that it be removed immediately.

The problem with your information and it is accurate according to FCRA, is that the companies very seldom will adhere to the FCRA when they report this information. They a lot of times will contact and run a name search in every county the person they are investigating live in. They will report charges if they show up regardless of dismissal, not guilty, nol. pros. etc etc. They do not care since that information is public and able to be reported. The only way they won't is if the person gets the charges that did not result in a valid conviction expunged, pardoned or otherwise sealed from their record. The OP could pursue FCRA violation fines for the company not correcting but they will and when they do it is too late because the damage has been done. The job retraction is based upon that information they are not going to over turn it. The best thing would be to get the judge sign off on an expungement, sealment of the record which will result in the charges and all associated records from it to not be reported.

 

[army judge]

It is very often IMPOSSIBLE for Person X to PROVE what Person J knew (or knows).

It is also difficult to prove that Person X owed a legal duty to reveal a certain fact, or in most cases any fact, to Person J.

Is that an issue here?

That would only be revealed after the dispute is heard before a court of competent jurisdiction.

 

[Tax Counsel]

The best thing would be to get the judge sign off on an expungement, sealment of the record which will result in the charges and all associated records from it to not be reported.

That will help with future applications, if the OP's state provides for it. It does nothing to help with the job rejections the OP has already had due to FCRA violations. There can be a worthwhile recovery for those violations while forcing the CRA to clean up the consumer report. It's not like the OP has to choose only one or the other course of action. The OP may pursue all remedies available to him/her and recourse under the FCRA is one of them.

 

[Redemptionman]

That will help with future applications, if the OP's state provides for it. It does nothing to help with the job rejections the OP has already had due to FCRA violations. There can be a worthwhile recovery for those violations while forcing the CRA to clean up the consumer report. It's not like the OP has to choose only one or the other course of action. The OP may pursue all remedies available to him/her and recourse under the FCRA is one of them.

The only requirement that the Credit Reporting agency has is to correct the record, they will correct it and send the updated report to the employer. What do you think will happen? You can not put that genie back into the bottle if you will. It has already been report, job offer has already been retracted, and there really is nothing you can do except sue the credit reporting agency who will use in their defense that they corrected their report. Trust me the companies who deal in this information do not care.

 

[Tax Counsel]

The only requirement that the Credit Reporting agency has is to correct the record, they will correct it and send the updated report to the employer. What do you think will happen?

If it gets removed from the consumer report, it will help the OP in the future. It doesn't take long to make the request and it could provide a benefit for the OP going forward. Certainly faster and cheaper than going for expungement, if expungement of a warrant is even an option in the OP's state. Why you seem to resist the idea of trying something that is relatively simple and fast and could help is beyond me, other than perhaps you just want to find something to argue with me about.

 

[Redemptionman]

If it gets removed from the consumer report, it will help the OP in the future. It doesn't take long to make the request and it could provide a benefit for the OP going forward. Certainly faster and cheaper than going for expungement, if expungement of a warrant is even an option in the OP's state. Why you seem to resist the idea of trying something that is relatively simple and fast and could help is beyond me, other than perhaps you just want to find something to argue with me about.

No I wasn't looking for that, but if one agency report picks it up then every other one will do it as well regardless of a valid conviction. The only way to really ensure it doesn't happen is to have the judge remove it. All states that I know of allow non convictions or charges that are not the result of a valid conviction to be removed from the record. This is there to protect people from unlawful reporting of information that wasn't supported by a valid conviction.

 

[Tax Counsel]

No I wasn't looking for that, but if one agency report picks it up then every other one will do it as well regardless of a valid conviction. The only way to really ensure it doesn't happen is to have the judge remove it. All states that I know of allow non convictions or charges that are not the result of a valid conviction to be removed from the record. This is there to protect people from unlawful reporting of information that wasn't supported by a valid conviction.

I get where you are coming from, and its worth trying if warrants can be expunged in that state (and just because arrests and some minor convictions may be expunged doesn't necessarily mean warrants may be expunged). That will help it getting on new reports going forward. But to get it off what is already on the consumer report, the fastest and cheapest way to do that is follow the rules under the FDCPA, which starts with asking the CRA to remove the old item. IMO there is no reason why the OP shouldn't try both.