Is Your Own Criminal Records Check Really Worth It?

By Michael Klazema on 2/7/2011

A criminal records check isn’t just about looking into the history of the people you come into contact with every day. We’ve all heard about the companies that run criminal history checks on their employees, either voluntarily or because it is a legal requirement, and we’ve also heard about private citizens that use information from the sex offender registry to make sure their neighborhood is safe. Sometimes, though, the most beneficial background check is the one you do on yourself.

There are a couple reasons to do your own criminal records check. First, if your identity has been stolen and used to commit fraud or other crimes, this may be the only way to find out about it before it is too late. Second, if you share a name or other personal details with a criminal, a possible employer or authority figure could mistake you for the person who committed the crime.

Most people probably think that this could never happen to them. After all, how many people really share the same name with someone who committed some heinous crime? And even if this huge coincidence did come up, it could surely be cleared up quickly. Right?
Not necessarily. Just recently there was a case up in Canada where a woman applied for a job that required a criminal background check. This woman had never committed a crime, had never been charged or convicted of any criminal offense in her life, but for some reason her background check came back saying that she was a possible convicted sex offender.

The most surprising part of this story is that it wasn’t even her name that matched the real criminal’s. It was her birthday. What followed was a four-week process to try and clear up the misunderstanding. This meant she had to get fingerprinted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police so they could run her through the system to prove that she was not, in fact, the same person who had committed those crimes. Of course, this woman was extremely confused by this experience. It seemed like a strange criteria to use to match her to someone that committed a crime. Strange or not, though, she lost out on the job opportunity while she waited for the situation to get cleared up.

It turns out that the reason for the policy of matching birthdays was implemented because they were concerned that pardoned sex offenders would simply change their name, and, depending on the province, that new name might not get linked to their record.  While employers are encouraged to be understanding and work on a case-by-case basis, it does show that anything could happen if someone runs a criminal record check on you. The only way to be prepared is to do your own ahead of time and make sure you are prepared for anything that might come up.

Tag Cloud
Recent Posts

Latest News

  • March 20 Employers who use E-Verify must follow the proper steps and procedures when they receive a “tentative non-confirmation notice” from either the Social Security Administration or Department of Homeland Security. Failure to follow the proper procedures can cost employers both time and money. 
  • March 20

    Four Department of Commerce employees are out after their background checks resulted in security clearance denials. All four had worked high-ranking positions for months despite incomplete background checks.

  • March 15 As more states legalize the recreational use of cannabis, they contend with the emergence of new industries surrounding marijuana cultivation and production. 
  • March 14 In most cases, it is easy to determine where an issue might show up on a pre-employment background check. Citations for traffic violations or reckless driving charges will appear on a motor vehicle record check. Verdicts in a civil court case will show on a civil court background check. And criminal convictions—from petty theft to violent felonies—show up on criminal background checks.
  • March 13 How many years back do employment background checks go? This question can have multiple different answers depending on the situation.
  • March 13 A new bill in Florida would require landlords of apartment complexes to present tenants with verifications of employee background checks to give them peace of mind the people working in and around their homes are trustworthy.
  • March 08 Police officers working with the University of Texas at Arlington recently arrested a man who had avoided police capture on a warrant out of Oregon for nearly two decades. The man, whose real name is Daniel Charles Ray Hanson, spent those 17 years using a variety of fake names and identification documents to move around the country, often engaging with educational institutions under false pretenses. Police say Hanson regularly went by at least three different aliases. He sports a rap sheet that stretches back to an arson conviction in 1995. 
  • March 07

    The Future of EEOC Guidance in Texas Is Up in the Air

    The EEOC issued guidance in 2012 warning employers about the dangers of enforcing categorical policies to bar candidates with criminal histories. That guidance is not enforceable in Texas thanks to a recent court ruling.

  • March 05 Vermont is the latest state to restrict employers’ access to and use of social media accounts of employees and applicants. 
  • March 01 In an age of "industry disruptors" turning established business models on their heads, companies such as Uber and Lyft rely on a unique workforce of individuals outside the traditional employer-employee context. Uber calls them "partners" while other businesses refer to them as "independent contractors," the official classification these individuals use for tax purposes. Recently, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) revealed they had warned a business, Postmates, for misclassifying their staff as independent contractors. In the NLRB's determination, these individuals were employees.