Indiana Makes Technical Correction Affecting Criminal History Providers

By Michael Klazema on 4/5/2014

In early August 2013, reported on the passage of Indiana House Bill 1392 which, among other things, amended laws about criminal history providers. The bill was drafted after a study committee reviewed and amended a law that had passed in 2012 (House Bill 1033), with an effective date of July 2013. A purpose of House Bill 1392 was to adjust the law to permit criminal history providers the ability to provide certain information relating to an incident that did not result in a conviction (for example, pending arrest cases). But, after House Bill 1392 passed, House Bill 1006 (2013) amended the same sections of the Indiana Code. Its authors apparently had not noted the passage of House Bill 1392, so accidentally re-instated parts of the law as it was in effect after House Bill 1033 and before House Bill 1392.

The version of Indiana Code § 24-4-18-6 that reflected the amendments as passed in House Bill 1392 was less restrictive and permitted the release of records that did not result in a conviction. Another version of Indiana Code § 24-4-18-6 restored the restrictive language which permitted a criminal history provider to provide only criminal history information that relates to a conviction, and prohibited the release of information that relates to infractions, arrests, or charges that did not result in a conviction.

Because there were two conflicting versions of the law, House Bill 1006 (2014) – confusingly the same bill number as in 2013 - was introduced in the 2014 legislative session. Section 35 (pgs. 44 & 45) of the bill provides a technical correction reflecting the intent of the study committee. This bill again amends Indiana Code § 24-4-18-6 to allow criminal history providers to release records that did not result in a conviction, such as pending arrest cases. It was passed by the legislature on March 18, 2014, and Governor Mike Pence signed it on March 26, 2014.

House Bill 1006 (2014) goes into effect July 1, 2014. It is available here:’s compliance update dated August 17, 2012:’s compliance update dated August 2, 2013:

Tag Cloud
Recent Posts

Latest News

  • February 18

    Many hiring decisions are based mostly on candidates’ past work experiences. Here’s how a background check can verify employers to make sure those hiring decisions are grounded in fact.

  • February 14 As more states legalize various forms of marijuana, past marijuana convictions are still causing concern while uncertainty over substances such as CBD drives new arrests. 
  • February 12 A new bill in the New York State legislature could add new requirements for school employee background checks. Currently, private schools are not required to follow state mandates regarding background checks.
  • February 07 Some parents in El Paso, Texas have been left wondering about the strength of their city's youth sports procedures after a felon fraudulently took funds for a girls' soccer team.
  • February 06 If there is one way that volunteer organizations could serve their communities better, it’s implementing more thorough volunteer screening policies.
  • February 05 Madison County, Illinois has created a new initiative designed to help individuals overcome barriers to employment. Clients of the initiative will be able to explore criminal record expungement among other options.
  • February 01 An OfficeTeam survey found that the two most common forms of resume dishonesty had to do with past employers: job experience and job duties or responsibilities.
  • January 31 During the longest government shutdown in U.S. history, hundreds of thousands of federal employees have gone without work for more than a month. Some are finding temporary alternatives elsewhere.
  • January 29 A Florida nurse has been arrested for allegedly stealing two types of prescription pain medications from the county jail where she worked. The case highlights the importance of rigorous drug testing procedures for employment situations in which employees have access to prescription drugs.
  • January 24 After the airline failed to adequately disclose to applicants that they would undergo a background check, a court has ruled Delta did not meet its legislative obligations. The settlement highlights the importance of rigorous compliance.