A new California case came out March 23, 2010 that gives a background firm protection when it reports sexual offender data from the Megan’s Law Web site, and also clarifies that the prohibition of using sex offender registration information for employment does not apply when there is a person at risk.
For a quick review of the case, see:
http://www.esrcheck.com/wordpress/1440/california-case-protects-constitutional-right-of-background-screening-firm-to-report-sex-offender-registration.
The actual case can be found at:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B214653.PDF
In 2006, the Department of Justice launched the Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender public website designed to establish a link between already maintained public sex offender registries within the United States and its territories. The site serves as a portal between state-specific agencies; however, it cannot account for the multiple discrepancies in sex offender registration requirements between jurisdictions such as the various classification types of sex registrants, how often the sites are updated, and differences in the length of time and whether or not all offenders are required to register. Recognizing the limitations of the site, and using the Department of Justice as a starting point, SI developed a more comprehensive intelligence source for sex offender registries by compiling the requirements and discrepancies from every jurisdiction into one data source, allowing our research analysts to perform a deeper analysis of information.
The benefit of this intelligence came to fruition when SI located a felony sexual assault case in New York state, which included dismissed charges of stalking, endangering the welfare of a child and criminal possession of a weapon. The subject was found guilty, but because this was a first offense, he was sentenced to 40 days community service and five years probation. An order of protection also was issued, and as a result of the conviction, the subject was required to register as a low-risk sex offender for 20 years. Several months after his conviction, the subject violated the protection order and was sentenced to nine months imprisonment. Due to the nature of the crime and sentence, the subject’s name was not located in the public sex offender database; however, SI was able to use its in-house resource to review state-specific registration requirements. As a result, our research analyst contacted New York’s Division of Criminal Justice Services to confirm that the subject was registered as a sex offender in New York. Since the subject had applied for a service position in which he may have had contact with hundreds of people each day, this information was vital to the hiring decision
An independent certified public accounting firm contacted SI to perform a background investigation of an applicant being considered for a position with fiduciary duties. The subject disclosed to our client that some “minor credit issues” may turn up in his background. Public record searches revealed four unpaid federal tax liens filed in 2007 and 2008 totaling $82,000, and a recent judgment for $30,000.
The subject also failed to mention a foreclosure action filed against him in 2008. After a verdict in favor the bank for the sale of the property, the bank had to file an unlawful detainer action because the subject refused to vacate the premises. And adverse information was not limited to financial issues.
The subject’s motor vehicle record contained several negative items, including one suspension for failure to appear twice within nine months. The subject’s tendency to ignore court orders was further revealed when he was identified as a defendant in a closed misdemeanor case for indecent exposure. Court documents indicated that the subject failed to appear and a bench warrant was issued. Eventually, the subject made an appearance in court and pleaded guilty.
He was sentenced to register as a sex offender, pay restitution and serve 60 days in jail. SI’s findings confirmed that the subject served the jail time and then moved out of state; however, searches of multiple databases located no record that the subject had registered as a sex offender, as ordered by the court.
