Indeed. Also, when one obtains a criminal background check through a company, certain information is withheld pursuant to state and federal statutes. Employment purposes is a noncriminal justice purpose as defined by the FBI and agencies not authorized by state statute are very limited in the access that they can receive. As my day job, I am the FBI and DPS Agency Security Contact for my employer (goverment agency authorized by statute to perform criminal background checks). I am required to be familiar with the criminal and civil codes applicable to criminal background checks and perform criminal background checks as required by statute and to manage the training of staff required to handle criminal background reports. Dealing with this information is a big, hairy deal-one for which most organizations are not set up to properly manage.

A major issue related to criminal justice information is dessimination. Only persons authorized by statute may receive criminal justice information. They MAY NOT dessiminate criminal justice information to persons within their agency who are not authorized by statute or with persons outside their agency (authorized or otherwise) unless the communication is necessary for a specific purpose that is authorized.

Bottom line is that any organization that intends to perform criminal background checks on members or staff needs to confer with an attorney to determine what state and federal laws apply. They should also consult with their state's custodian of criminal records to determine what the requirements are for obtaining criminal background checks and whether or not they are even eligible to do so. There are significant criminal and civil penalties for improper use or dessimination of criminal records. Due to abuses by the private firms that perform criminal records checks and other issues, the FBI is taking this issue on aggressively.

I would also note that sexual offenses are no longer indicated on reports that are provided to noncriminal justice agencies. That means that schools and other institutions are not provided sex offender information by the FBI or their state's custodian of criminal records. That information can only be accessed by the state sex offender registry and the registry only indicates the information permitted by statute. Also, federal and state statutes prohibit retention of criminal history reports once they have been used for the intended purpose and requires that they be destroyed using an authorized method.

May I ask a question here? I have always had the impression that most railway museums have a 'children must be accompanied by an adult' policy. This could be the kids parents, the teachers and chaperones that come with a school group, or the scoutmasters that come with scouting activities. So, when exactly are museum members alone with and directly supervising children? I can think of very few cases, and the museum that does take on that responsibility had better be thinking about liability far beyond background checks.

Background checks don't solve all your problems.
A guy from my old NRHS chapter is looking at 90 years for money laundering and embezzlement from the boosters for my alma mater. I didn't see that coming and neither did anyone else who knew him.

90 years for money laundering and embezzlement? Who's your Alma Mater, Harvard? Just how much money did he get, millions? How can he get far more jail time than a murderer? Something is wrong with the system. Could it possibly be 90 months instead?

Are there any jobs that are legally not open to sex offenders? I was of the impression that they could not, for example, be teachers or day care workers? For that matter, is this sort of thing covered by federal regulations, or does it vary from state to state? Lots of places have that sort of rule, but is it a law or a company policy?

I work with two museums and a zoo that all require background checks, you give them signed permission to do them as part of the membership application, and they make it very clear that since they work with kids, and since there is at least the theoretical chance you could be alone with children under 18 at some point (Rules prohibiting it notwithstanding, what happens when little Johnny wanders off, can't find Mom and comes to you looking for help?) you need not bother to apply if you're on the offender list as they will check and you won't be approved.

Also note that there are varying "levels" of sex offender. It can be something like an 18 year old that couldn't wait for his 17-15/16 year old girl friend to turn 18 that happened 30 years ago to well, America's Most Wanted TV show star candidates. Do they all get the same treatment?

Here's how Seattle divides them up, I don't know if it's standardized everywhere or not.

Level 1: The vast majority of registered sex offenders are classified as Level 1 offenders. They are considered at low risk to re-offend. These individuals may be first time offenders and they usually know their victims.

Level 2 offenders have a moderate risk of re-offending. They generally have more than one victim and the abuse may be long term. These offenders usually groom their victims and may use threats to commit their crimes. These crimes may be predatory with the offender using a position of trust to commit their crimes. Typically these individuals do not appreciate the damage they have done to their victims.

Level 3 offenders are considered to have a high risk to re-offend. They usually have one or more victims and may have committed prior crimes of violence. They may not know their victim(s). The crime may show a manifest cruelty to the victim(s) and these offenders usually deny or minimize the crime. These offenders commonly have clear indications of a personality disorder.

Here in Arizona, we have three levels of offenders. Low lever offenders are Level 1. Medium Risk offenders are Level 2 and High Risk offenders are Leval 3. County sheriffs and the Arizona Department of Public Safety are required to do public notification when required by law. However, state law PROHIBITS the release of any information regarding Level 1 offenders by law enforcement.

As for disqualifying offenders from various occupations, disabilities can be set aside by the court in which the offender was convicted. They can always apply for relief-whether it is granted is another matter entirely. If the court orders the record sealed, it is not subject to release. Each state has different employment laws that apply to use of a criminal conviction/arrest record in determination of hiring or promotion. In some states, use of said records in making a determination regarding hiring or promotion is a criminal offense itself. For example, Utah provides that upon application for relief, convictions for certain misdemeanor offenses can be sealed (Utah does not expunge criminal records). A prospective employer is barred by law from considering the conviction in making their hiring determination.

Now, a story from my own experience. I knew a private process server who was licensed here in Arizona (deceased). He had two prior convictions in the United States District Courts for felony drug possession. Arizona requires all process server applicants to pass a criminal background check. Our state law also instructs the judicial officers and private process server program administrators that we SHALL NOT consider an applicant unfit simply based upon a criminal record. We MUST take into consideration the nature of the charges and conviction and the amount of time that has passed and the nature of the position for which the applicant is applying.

In the case of my process server, he had served his time in prison and parole and had applied for and received relief from both United States District Courts. His initial application was denied and he appealed the decision, as was his right. At the hearing, he presented witnesses in his favor (acquaintences in the local legal profession) and the judge reversed his decision and granted the applicant certification.

Of course, as a professional working for the courts, I should note that much of the information that private companies return in criminal background checks is inaccurate. The problem is that there is a lack of accountability for these companies-there is no legal mechanism to hold them accountable when incorrect information that they provide does real harm to a private person.

Just quoting the local news story that I'd read after hearing about it from a good friend of mine who still lives in the area and is a member of the NRHS chapter this guy was in at the time (and I have no reason to believe isn't still a member right now as he didn't do anything toward the chapter that anyone is aware of). But seeing that he apparently hasn't been found guilty yet that I'm aware of, I'm not naming locations or names as it's not really relevant anyway. The relevant point was that a background check wouldn't have screened anything on that guy before he was caught.
But yes, it's quite easy to be thrown in prison for more time after stealing something than offing someone. A simple google search will turn up plenty of examples of exactly that.

Unless you're a big bank or corporation. Then you get a bailout!