Comments on: California Civil Court proprietary databases become less useful http://pibuzz.com/2006/02/15/california-civil-court-proprietary-databases-become-less-useful/ Private Investigator Blog - Public Records, Internet Search - PI Buzz Thu, 17 May 2012 19:35:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Tamara Thompson http://pibuzz.com/2006/02/15/california-civil-court-proprietary-databases-become-less-useful/comment-page-1/#comment-26 Tamara Thompson Thu, 23 Feb 2006 18:29:05 +0000 http://pibuzz.com/?p=604#comment-26 The Michigan Dept. of Ed. listed many teachers as sex offenders who had no criminal record, in response to a new state law, showing that the government can't necessarily keep accurate records. No wonder it's such a challenge for those of us who are in in biz of sorting fact from fiction! Read the article at: http://tinyurl.com/lmwyk The Michigan Dept. of Ed. listed many teachers as sex offenders who had no criminal record, in response to a new state law, showing that the government can’t necessarily keep accurate records. No wonder it’s such a challenge for those of us who are in in biz of sorting fact from fiction! Read the article at: http://tinyurl.com/lmwyk

]]> By: Rob http://pibuzz.com/2006/02/15/california-civil-court-proprietary-databases-become-less-useful/comment-page-1/#comment-25 Rob Thu, 23 Feb 2006 09:30:25 +0000 http://pibuzz.com/?p=604#comment-25 Steve, I can attest to investigators seeming unable to complete thorough checks for public records. What I stress to many of them is that the "interview" with whatever clerk is in charge of the records is the most important part of any check. The question I like to ask is variations on "What does this cover." I ask them specifically, "If I run my subject's information through this computer, what years does that check?" Or, "What records does this database cover? Divorces? Civil lawsuits? Traffic violations?" It is usually very simple to get straight answers from the clerk, and it always surprises me just how few people spend the time to actuall talk with the clerk. Steve, I can attest to investigators seeming unable to complete thorough checks for public records. What I stress to many of them is that the “interview” with whatever clerk is in charge of the records is the most important part of any check. The question I like to ask is variations on “What does this cover.” I ask them specifically, “If I run my subject’s information through this computer, what years does that check?” Or, “What records does this database cover? Divorces? Civil lawsuits? Traffic violations?” It is usually very simple to get straight answers from the clerk, and it always surprises me just how few people spend the time to actuall talk with the clerk.

]]> By: Steve from NY http://pibuzz.com/2006/02/15/california-civil-court-proprietary-databases-become-less-useful/comment-page-1/#comment-23 Steve from NY Thu, 23 Feb 2006 02:55:19 +0000 http://pibuzz.com/?p=604#comment-23 Not only do I not trust the "runners" but, unless I have worked with someone long enough to know that they are capable of researching the records properly, I don't even trust some of those with whom I work!!! Every county seems to employ a different system and, shamefully, the "investigators" I have dealt with in the past are lacking in the ability to adequately research the records. Perhaps it can be contributed to their not understanding how or why the records are recorded, or because they fail to ask the county employees the required questions to insure a thorough search, but, generally, the only one I trust is myself. Not only do I not trust the “runners” but, unless I have worked with someone long enough to know that they are capable of researching the records properly, I don’t even trust some of those with whom I work!!! Every county seems to employ a different system and, shamefully, the “investigators” I have dealt with in the past are lacking in the ability to adequately research the records. Perhaps it can be contributed to their not understanding how or why the records are recorded, or because they fail to ask the county employees the required questions to insure a thorough search, but, generally, the only one I trust is myself.

]]> By: Tamara Thompson http://pibuzz.com/2006/02/15/california-civil-court-proprietary-databases-become-less-useful/comment-page-1/#comment-20 Tamara Thompson Thu, 23 Feb 2006 00:21:26 +0000 http://pibuzz.com/?p=604#comment-20 Physical court checks by PIs is the only way to go. I don't trust the "background checks" court runners because I've heard disaster stories. When we report our search results - whether the checks were at a government site, through a database provider or by another party - this is stated in our reports. Physical court checks by PIs is the only way to go. I don’t trust the “background checks” court runners because I’ve heard disaster stories. When we report our search results – whether the checks were at a government site, through a database provider or by another party – this is stated in our reports.

]]> By: Candice Tal http://pibuzz.com/2006/02/15/california-civil-court-proprietary-databases-become-less-useful/comment-page-1/#comment-19 Candice Tal Wed, 22 Feb 2006 20:20:37 +0000 http://pibuzz.com/?p=604#comment-19 We have observed this issue of incomplete database records for the last 20years. It is a serious problem because most client companies are unaware of the fact that they are missing up to 30% of the publically available records; in particular criminal and civil court records. We have been tracking these stats with respect to pre-employment screening results for the last 10+ years. Additionally: 1)There are no benchmarks of accuracy for the primary third-party records providers. 2)Many county courts have "holes" or data gaps in their own records; and data providers do not note this in their records at all. Currently, the only way to have highly accurate reporting is to have trained investigators physically reviewing court records. This should be a requirement for any and all so called Consumer Reporting Agencies; even those that say they go to the courts frequently "miss" conviction histories--how is that possible when we are reviewing the same records at the same courthouses? Clients are unaware that their apparent "cost-savings" are not really saving them anything, as they are missing critical data; including many felony convictions. Penny-wise, pound-foolish. I'm delighted to see this discussion forum emerge in our industry--congratulations Tamara & Rosemarie! We have observed this issue of incomplete database records for the last 20years. It is a serious problem because most client companies are unaware of the fact that they are missing up to 30% of the publically available records; in particular criminal and civil court records. We have been tracking these stats with respect to pre-employment screening results for the last 10+ years.

Additionally:
1)There are no benchmarks of accuracy for the primary third-party records providers.
2)Many county courts have “holes” or data gaps in their own records; and data providers do not note this in their records at all.

Currently, the only way to have highly accurate reporting is to have trained investigators physically reviewing court records. This should be a requirement for any and all so called Consumer Reporting Agencies; even those that say they go to the courts frequently “miss” conviction histories–how is that possible when we are reviewing the same records at the same courthouses?

Clients are unaware that their apparent “cost-savings” are not really saving them anything, as they are missing critical data; including many felony convictions. Penny-wise, pound-foolish.

I’m delighted to see this discussion forum emerge in our industry–congratulations Tamara & Rosemarie!

]]> By: Rob http://pibuzz.com/2006/02/15/california-civil-court-proprietary-databases-become-less-useful/comment-page-1/#comment-11 Rob Thu, 16 Feb 2006 05:43:36 +0000 http://pibuzz.com/?p=604#comment-11 Personally, I'm glad to see you plug your site Tim. Search Systems is a fantastic resource and I am a frequent user. One thing to keep in mind about even so-called "direct" sites is that they aren't always 100% updated either. I have done searches in jurisdictions where I learned that their online databases were only updated once every other month. Obviously, if the person you're looking for only generated a record in the last month or so it isn't going to show up online. If I need to be sure I always get a hold of a clerk and have them do the search. Or, if that won't work, I get a hold of somebody local and have them do it. Sure it costs more, but better safe than sorry. Personally, I’m glad to see you plug your site Tim. Search Systems is a fantastic resource and I am a frequent user.

One thing to keep in mind about even so-called “direct” sites is that they aren’t always 100% updated either. I have done searches in jurisdictions where I learned that their online databases were only updated once every other month. Obviously, if the person you’re looking for only generated a record in the last month or so it isn’t going to show up online.

If I need to be sure I always get a hold of a clerk and have them do the search. Or, if that won’t work, I get a hold of somebody local and have them do it. Sure it costs more, but better safe than sorry.

]]>