BRB's Public Records Blog

Sexual Offender Databases

A valuable tool available to employers is the use of sexual offender databases.  These state sexual registration requirements, popularly know as Megan’s Law, were signed into law in May 1996.  The law had two primary goals.  The first goal was to require each state and the federal government to register sexual offenders.  The second goal provided for community notifications by the local police.

Although a potentially valuable tool, these databases were the subject of a news story in 2003.  The story centered on a survey of the fifty states by a child advocacy group that found literally tens of thousands of offenders who should have been registered but were "lost" in the system.  Either the sexual offenders did not register or the state did not know where the registrants were located.

The group – Parent’s for Megan’s Law – contacted all fifty states by telephone.  According to news accounts, the study showed that states, on average, were unable to account for twenty-four percent of the sex offenders who were supposed to be in the databases.  Eighteen states said they were unable to track how many offenders were failing to register, or simply did not know.

A sexual offender database search, both nationwide and using state and local websites, is an extremely valuable tool.  However, employers and volunteer groups need to understand that these databases are not primary tools, but supplemental tools subject to some degree of error and should be utilized with some caution and in conjunction with other safe hiring procedures.

Click Here for a helpful URL with links to state and county sites.

(Copyrighted excerpt from The Safe Hiring Manual by Lester S. Rosen)

Homeland Security Releases Real ID Grant Guidelines

The Homeland Security Department released grant guidelines to assist states applying for $35 million to begin implementing Real ID requirements for handling personal information associated with driver’s licenses. 

The Real ID Act prohibits the federal government from accepting state-issues driver’s licenses or identification cards for any federal purpose (e.g. accessing federal facilities, boarding federally regulated commercial aircraft, etc.) unless the state meets standards to be developed by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).  The Act required states to be in compliance by May 11, 2008, and calls for non-compliant licenses and IDs to be clearly identified as such.  (Copyrighted excerpt from The MVR Book)

Slight Fee Increased Scheduled for Electronic MVRs in Montana

A firm date has not been, but Registered Users at Montana's https://app.mt.gov/dojdrs/ will see an increase for a driving record from $7.00 to $7.25 right after the first of the year.

About Minnesota's New Online Access to Trial Court Records

Minnesota recently unveiled the state's new Trial Court Public Access (MPA) at http://pa.courts.state.mn.us/default.aspx. Search statewide or by county. Records available include criminal, civil, family, and probate. Searches can be performed using a case number or name.

But there are a number of caveats; foremost, certain publicly-accessible case records cannot be viewed online. For example, electronic copies of public documents filed by parties also cannot be viewed online at this time. Also, name searches for criminal case records will not return information on cases without dispositions.  Two counties (Ramsey and Dakota) are not yet online. The federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) also prevents the state from displaying harassment and domestic abuse case records online.

Interestingly, the public access terminals found at the courthouses do not use this system. For example, party street address and name searches on criminal pre-conviction case records are publicly accessible and available at the courthouse, but not online. The harassment and domestice abuse case records are available at the courthouse. Comment fields for all case types are not available online but are available at the courthouse. Online users are not notified when such public data is restricted from online viewing.

This online system is supplemental at best. In fact, the web page states MPA REMOTE SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR BACKGROUND CHECKS. The bottom line is the public access terminals found at courthouses are still the most accurate searching locations. In Judicial Districts (arranged by number and often covering several counties) many court's public access terminals contain court records for that entire district.

White Paper on SSN Redaction

A white paper designed to help government agencies develop policies for removing Social Security numbers and other sensitive information from public documents has been released by the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) along with the National Electronic Commerce Coordinating Council (eC3).  The paper details the redaction practices of 19 states and offers insights on issues in developing redaction programs.  Privacy, Public Access & Policymaking in State Redaction Practices. 

Ohio - No Criminal Record Checks for Legislators

Ohio House Bill 104 requires a criminal records check of an applicant for an initial license for a number of professions including accountants, contractors, and dental hygienists . . . but not state legislators.  The bill passed committee and is going to the house but an amendment requiring checks on legislators was voted down.  Apparently what's good for the public doesn't apply to Ohio lawmakers.  View Bill Folder. 

Proposed $25,000 Fee Increase to Obtain Electronic MVR’s in DC

An item has slipped under the radar which could greatly affect access of motor vehicle records from Washington DC. On November 16th, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in Vol.54 - NO.46 of the District of Columbia Register was published that, among other items, raises the annual fee of an entity purchasing electronic driving records from $100 per year to $25,000 per year. Also proposed is an increase in the annual fee for periodic receipt of electronic files containing vehicle registration information from $1,200 a year to $36,000 per year. The way the current law reads - the proposed rule changes read - is  there is no distinction on the type of entity that is receiving the driving records electronically. The fee applies equally to insurance companies, trucking companies, MVR vendors, etc., as long as that entity is the account obtaining records directly.

The public has 30 days to comment on the proposed new rules, starting November 16th.

The language in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking states that a primary reason for this increase is that the Director wants to raise funds to safeguard the personal records of DC drivers because of the recent data security breach in California, and legal costs with data collection companies. However, instead of raising the fees to these same data collection companies and data brokers that apply to purchase the data in bulk, the Director wants to raise the fees for a distinctly different group - a group that has nothing to do with the data security breach or with data collection. Interestingly, the entities affected hold written permission of drivers to access the drivers' data so drivers can obtain a job or get insurance, and they already have the very personal information on file that the Director is trying to protect. There is a huge, distinctive difference between these two completely different types of requesters.

One major, evolutionary reason that online service is provided by state jurisdictions to the insurance industry is so that DMV personnel do not have to provide records on a manual basis - meaning by mail and over the counter. Common practice for states charging an annual fee for electronic driving record access is between $75 and $95.  Raising the DC fee from $100 to $25,000 will most likely lead to an increase of requests for records processed manually by DC. The proposed new rules do not, I believe, contain provisions for the Director to add additional employees to handle increased requests by mail or in person.

To view the current rules as they are written, visit http://www.dmv.dc.gov/info/title-18/chap08_pdf.shtm

The person to contact to obtain a copy of the proposed rulemaking is the same person to whom to submit comments. Contact Mr. Glenn Durbin, Assistant Attorney General, DC Department of Motor Vehicles, 95 M Street, SW, Ste 300, Washington DC, 20024. The telephone number is 202-729-7012, fax is 202-729-7152, email is glenn.durbin@dc.gov

When faced with a budget crunch, there have been workable solutions that other jurisdictions have put into place. I sincerely hope some additional research is performed and common sense prevails.

Proposed Amendments to Ohio Court Record Access

The Supreme Court of Ohio is accepting public comments until December 19, 2007 on proposed amendments addressing access to court records per the Rules of Superintendence for the Courts of Ohio.

The proposed amendment list is extensive and includes among other items: 1) modifications to the current process of sealing court records; 2) partial redaction (only the year on the DOB) or omission of personal identifiers when a case is filed; 3) any party to the case or any individual who is the subject of information in a case record may request that the court limit public access to the case information.

To view the proposed amendments, go to  http://rules.supremecourtofohio.gov/rules/ and click on the third item down on the list.  Comments on the proposed amendments should be submitted in writing to:  Jo Ellen Cline, Legislative Counsel, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 S. Front St, 7th Floor, Columbus, Ohio  43215-3431, or Clinej@sconet.state.oh.us not later than December 19, 2007. The Courts asks to please include your full name and mailing address in any comments submitted by e-mail.