Private Investigator Public Records Internet Search Privacy Reporting – PI Buzz

Anthony Pellicano may have supplanted Sam Spade as the most widely recognized private investigator, albeit Sam was fictional, although Pellicano seems so. The National Law Journal hyperbolic headline, Christensen Case a ‘Wake-Up’ Call for Lawyers on Use of Private Eyes, suggests that the Pellicano/Christensen matter is stirring an otherwise somnolent crowd, causing attorneys to be more attentive to their relationship with investigators (perhaps more so due to the criminal charge against one of their own). But, really people, other private investigators are not conducting illegal wiretaps or audio recordings, making threats to opposing parties in litigation or conspiring with their attorneys to do any of the above. This is truly an anomaly.

Still, attorneys and investigators in many cases don’t clarify the investigative approaches that may be employed. This could be essential as a matter of law, regulation, ethics or just good sense for the case at hand. For example, an attorney may ask her investigator to locate assets on an opposing party. Is the other party a judgment debtor or is the request a pre-litigation check? Does it matter?

One attorney in the story says, referring to the Pellicano/Christensen (and Hewlett Packard case) prosecution, that it has “woken up some lawyers as to what their liability, criminal or civil, may be with regard to private investigators they’ve hired.” And another: “you can’t just let your investigator go out there and investigate and take the fruits of what he provides and use it”. Those are sound conclusions.

Assume we all agree that wiretapping and conspiring to commit felonies is a very bad notion. What does Christensen Case a ‘Wake-Up’ Call suggest attorneys and their investigators should talk about to be sure that the investigator doesn’t just “go out there “? Well…nothing! There were no specifics included in the story. Here are a few of my own:

* What can, should or shouldn’t be stated to witnesses about the case?
* Are there involved parties who shouldn’t be contacted?
* Which information gathering methods mustn’t be used? Name them.
* Are there categories of records that the investigator should not obtain?

Have you talked with your attorney or investigator on ethical investigative methods?

Juror names and jury questionnaires are public records and subject to disclosure even if a trial judge has made promises to the contrary. At least in North Dakota. A ruling by that state’s Supreme Court, cited by the Associated Press, rebuffed a trial court’s claim that the records in one case were sealed out of fear that the jurors could be harassed.

“We conclude those reasons, by themselves, are insufficient to rebut the presumption of openness and to warrant a blanket closure in this case…”

Court rulings may seem like a bouncing ball when it comes to privacy, public records and electronic messaging. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has asserted that companies do not have an automatic right to access employees’ text messages if the data is stored on outside servers. Read more about this decision and the significance for privacy and data management. Some other news stories on email access and public records can be found at WikiFOIA.

Maybe it’s a trend in the refinement of the sex offender databases and regulation of where registered sex offenders can live.Tennessee has joined Indiana (see this court ruling on the Indiana law), Missouri, Kentucky and Alaska requiring registered sex offenders submit their email addresses, which are being added to those state online databases. States can’t keep track of the physical location of registrants so the email address disclosure may not be of much value to public safety.

I don’t regularly check the currency of the links in prior postings, but you may have realized that many links on the Internet are good one day and dead the next. One way to find the new page is to backspace to the URL, deleting the subdirectories. Click on this link to see what I mean by an error message. If you backspace to just http://www.indystar.com, you’ll get to the site’s home page. Once you get to the home page search for a tab or drop-down menu related to the content. At the IndyStar site I was looking for the database of live police calls, which in the tabs at the top of the page is “Data Central”, under the “News” tab, and in the body of the Home page is linked to from “More databases.” Confusing, eh?

Visually scan the home page for an icon related to the topic of the former page. Newspaper public records and Sheriff departments “Most Wanted” and “Current Inmates” databases are often only displayed with a button link. The link to the sitemap, a visual representation or topical list of the pages at that Web site is usually found at the top or very bottom of the page, if it’s there at all. As a last resort, use the site’s search engine engine. Usually you’ll do better with a decently formulated search query at Google or Yahoo!. The link to the IndyStar Data Central calls for service to police and fire was the second result in this fairly lame search construction. Often this is good enough to quickly get you to your destination.

How do you find the corrected link after getting an error message page?

Search the Motorcycle Accident Reports Database by state and county for all 50 states, covering 2002-2006. The Gannett News Service pooled government and proprietary data to create the reports.The accident reports don’t identify the parties to the accident, but they list the date and time, place, nature of the accident, whether it was a fatality, the type of motorcycle involved and the hometown of the motorcycle driver. This is an example of a full profile.

How could this database be helpful to you in your investigations or research?

Government agencies in California can’t assign control of records that would otherwise be public records to a private entity. SB 1696 enrolled. New Law Allows Greater Access to Government Contracts, PolitickerCA.com, Adam Keigwin.

A Pennsylvania open records blog reports that the recent overhaul of the Pennsylvania Right To Know Law includes a requirement that records held by private companies doing business with the government may be a public record.

Emails on the private home computers of government appointees serving on a foundation benefiting public schools are public records, according to an opinion by the North Dakota Attorney General.

I recently discovered that police records in Arizona, even in open investigations, are public records. Public Records Free Directory blog reports that new legislation requires government employee disciplinary records be disclosed, with a provision that police officer’s home addresses are protected.

Private investigators and Internet researchers may have to look beyond public records and personal information databases to develop profiles of students. Student directories, which can list a student’s full name, email, field of study, address and year of graduation, confirm attendance and suggest other research avenues.

I searched a name at a search engine that returned the student’s Facebook link. Her Facebook page had limited information available, but the public profile stated she was a student at Hofstra University, graduating in 2009. Search the Hofstra student directory by partial first or last name to confirm enrollment and to go to the student’s personal Web page, if she has one. The school also has a Student E-Mail Locator, searchable by partial first or last name. This can be a useful tool to confirm that your subject is enrolled in a particular college. The site doesn’t release the email address, but it will forward your email to the student so she can choose whether to contact you.

Not everyone has a Facebook or MySpace page, so don’t stop there when you’re looking for Web pages for a student. Hofstra also hosts student personal Web pages, but you wouldn’t find this one indexed in a major search engine, only through a student directory name search at the Hofstra site. When you’re locked out of one site, look elsewhere. You may get lucky and find your student here. Remember, not all Web pages are going to be found through a search at Google or Yahoo! Build on the personal data you collect to shape the keywords you use in searching and the sites you go to.

Looking for other student directories? If you don’t find it at the school site, or you’re looking more broadly, here’s one search query example.

Was “Student Directories for People Finder Searches” helpful?

Alaska is purported to have instituted one of the strongest identity theft protection laws through HB 25.

Although the bill sets out restrictions on the collection, sale and distribution to third parties of Social Security numbers, the exceptions should cover the normal course of business for private investigators.

A transfer of an individual’s social security number for the sole purpose of identifying a person about whom a report or database check is ordered, received, or provided is not a sale, lease, loan, trade, or rental of a social security number under this section.

Providing your clients an individual’s social security number is permitted if the purpose is regulated by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Modernization Act or by the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Disclosure is permissible if it’s “for a background check on the individual, identity verification, fraud prevention, medical treatment, law enforcement or other government purposes, or the individual’s employment, including employment benefits.”

Also, the police department may create a database of identity theft victims. If it does, it “shall provide a victim or the victim’s authorized representative access to a data base established under this section to establish that the individual has been a victim of identity theft. Access to the a data base established under this section is limited to criminal justice agencies, victims of identity theft, and individuals and agencies authorized by the victims.”

Idaho court records index for all 44 counties is online at the Idaho State Judiciary, Supreme Court Data Repository. Search by partial name for records from 1995 forward (some older cases may be available, according to the court Web site). The search form suggests that date of birth is a required field, but I found that a search by name only worked.

The index lists party names, city and state of residence, county of filing, case numbers, charges (or case type, in civil filings), filing or violation date, disposition and register of actions. Year of birth is listed on criminal cases. If a case has been sealed, that is noted. The cases are sorted by county. If there’s more than one case for that person in the selected county those are all listed on one page.

(Special contribution by Michael Sankey of BRB Publications, Inc.)

Effective June 8, 2008, the recording fee for each document recorded in West Virginia recording offices will increase by $5.00. There is no fee increase for document searches, copies or certifications.

The new fees will be as follows:
Deed will be $36.00; Deed of Trust will be $16.00; Amendment will be $16.00; and Assignment or Release will be $11.00. Thanks to the folks at Ernst Publishing for their assistance on clarifying each of the new fees.
The fee increase was part of S.B. 622 which can be found here.

If you read the bill, please be aware it is somewhat confusing. The bill does not contain language that says “there is a $5.00 fee increase,” but instead mentions monetarily the segments that make-up the entire cost of recording.

(Special contribution by Michael Sankey of BRB Publications, Inc.)

Effective July 1, 2008, significant changes are scheduled to take place in Vermont regarding criminal record access at the courts, from the Vermont Criminal Information Center (VCIC), and what will be reported on the VCIC record. These changes are triggered primarily from passage of Senate Bill 246.

Currently, the court fee for a criminal record search at a Vermont county district court is $10.00. Effective July 1, the fee will increase to $30.00 (per county search). Copy fees and certification fees will remain the same.

Currently, the fee for a criminal record search at the VCIC is also $10.00. Currently records are essentially released only to two public groups; the subject; to an employer but only if a conditional offer of employment is made.

Effective July 1, the fee for the state VCIC search will be $20.00 and the restrictions will be removed; records will be open to the public. The fee will increase again in July 2009 to $25.00. Currently all VCIC record requests must be made manually, but there are plans by the VCIC to have Internet access in place by December 2008.

However, there is an important caveat regarding what data will be reported by VCIC as of July 1st. Per the new law, the data reported on the VICI record will be restricted to only include the name, DOB, date of conviction, type of conviction, and offense level. The location of the court, the case docket number, and arrest-only records will not be shown. Thus, if there is a question on the name, a name variation, or common names with possible identical DOBs, one must pay the $30 search fee at each county district court searched to find the docket number in order to access the document file. Only 2 of Vermont’s 14 counties provide public access terminals – Chittenden and Rutland – which may provide a docket look-up.

The Vermont Administrative Office of the Courts and the people at VCIC are sympathetic to the problem. The VCIC has stated they will do everything possible to help narrow down the false positives. They predict a 5-day turnaround time to complete a search.

To view the legislation, go to a Senate Bill 246 (S.246).

What do you think about these changes?
Jimmie Mesis, Editor-in-Chief
PI Magazine

A little noticed but potentially significant (for public records researchers) California Attorney General opinion was released a week ago. The opinion upends the almost universal interpretation of the Public Records Act by county Assessors pertaining to disseminating property addresses on the Internet.

If you go to any California county Assessor online public inquiry you’ll see an explanation similar to this on the Stanislaus County site:

California Government Code 6254.21 states that “No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of the individual.”

Therefore the agencies don’t reveal anyone’s address.The law seems to be hewed to regarding the real property addresses for public officials, right? Not according to the AG. Deputy Attorney General Daniel Stone says the common interpretation is wrong and isn’t what the legislature intended.

As a practical matter, we believe that a broad and overly literal reading of section 6254.21(a) would lead to unworkable results. Some public agencies…might conclude that they were forced to refrain from making any property-related database accessible to any internet technology, no matter how secure or limited the network, due to the possibility that the data could contain home information of public officials. Other public agencies… might conclude that they were forced to review and redact their databases… Such an identification process would be difficult, time consuming, and inevitably incomplete. Furthermore, the resulting revised property databases… would no longer be comprehensive and would therefore be of diminished utility to users. We are hesitant to conclude that the Legislature could have intended such impractical results.

Simply put, the 1998 law was “intended to prevent public agencies from posting on their public websites any list or directory of public officials’ home addresses and telephone numbers, without first obtaining each official’s written permission to be included in the listing.” In other words, government agencies can’t construct a list of names and residential addresses of government employees and put that on their Internet sites.

Giving the Assessors permission to reconsider their ban on including addresses and names in their online databases, Stone states, simply:

Indeed, we believe that if the Legislature had in fact contemplated a comprehensively literal application of section 6254.21(a), that intention would have been more clearly reflected in the statute.

Give a kindly call to your local Assessor and ask her/him what changes they anticipate making in their Internet access in light of this opinion. What did the Assessor say?

Defendants Barred From Obtaining or Selling Consumers’ Phone Records to Third Parties

The Federal Trade Commission has put a permanent halt to an operation that allegedly obtained consumers’ confidential phone records without their knowledge or consent and sold them to third parties. The defendants are barred from obtaining consumers’ telephone records without their consent and court orders impose judgments on the defendants totaling more than $600,000 – the estimated amount of their ill-gotten gains.

This is the latest in a series of FTC cases targeting telephone pretexters – individuals who use false pretenses to obtain consumers’ confidential information. Since 2006 the FTC has charged sixteen individuals and their corporations with violating federal law by pretexting to obtain phone records of third parties. All have now been barred from pretexting and all have been ordered to give up the money they made engaging in the illegal practice.

In February 2007, the FTC asked a U.S. district court to order a permanent halt to the operations of a company that sold consumers’ confidential phone records, including information on calls placed and received. The FTC also sued the individuals who had used false pretenses to obtain the records from phone companies and then supplied those records to the company for a fee. The agency alleged these practices were unfair and deceptive in violation of federal law, and could endanger consumers’ safety. The agency also asked the court to order the defendants to give up their ill-gotten gains.

According to the FTC complaint, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that a customer’s phone records may only be disclosed “upon affirmative written request by the customer.” But the agency alleged that since at least 2005 Action Research Group, Inc., and its principals, Joseph and Matthew DePantes, sold confidential customer phone records, including lists of calls made and the dates, times, and duration of the calls, to third parties, without the knowledge or consent of the customers. To get the records, these defendants relied upon the other defendants, Eye in the Sky Investigations, Inc., Cassandra Selvage and Bryan Wagner, who obtained them from phone companies through “pretexting” – using “false pretenses, fraudulent statements, fraudulent or stolen documents or other misrepresentations, including posing as an account holder or as an employee” of a phone company. Selling the records constitutes an invasion of privacy that could endanger the health and safety of consumers, the agency alleged.

The DePantes and ARG agreed to settle the FTC charges. Defendants ESI, Cassandra Selvage, and Bryan Wagner are subject to default judgments entered by the court.

The settlement and default judgments permanently bar the defendants from obtaining, marketing or selling customer phone records or consumers’ personal information derived from those records. They also bar the defendants from pretexting or using others to pretext to obtain consumers’ information. The settlement order entered a judgment in the amount of $67,000 against the DePantes and ARG, the estimated amount of ill-gotten gains the defendants earned from their illegal scheme; the judgment was suspended upon a payment of $3,000 based on the defendants’ inability to pay. In the default judgments, the court ordered Wagner to give up $428,085 in ill-gotten gains and ESI and Selvage to give up $110,762.

The Commission vote to accept the settlements was 5-0. They were filed in U.S. District Court for the middle district of Florida, Orlando division.

NOTE: Stipulated final orders are for settlement purposes only and do not constitute an admission by the defendant of a law violation. Consent judgments have the force of law when signed by the judge.

What are your comments in this topic?

Jimmie Mesis, Editor-in-Chief
PI Magazine

The FTC reached an agreement on Wednesday for $600,000 in settlements and judgments against several private investigators others involved in the Hewlett-Packard Co. boardroom scandal.

The FTC settlement imposed a $67,000 penalty against Matthew DePante, his father, Joseph DePante, and their now-defunct company, Action Research Group Inc., which was based in Clearwater, Fla. All but $3,000 was suspended due to their inability to pay.

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando division, also entered default judgments against DePante’s subcontractors, Bryan Wagner, who must pay $428,085, and Cassandra Selvage and her company, Eye in the Sky Investigations Inc., who must pay $110,762.

More details on this topic can be found at the FTC website as well as other published articles. You can read the actual FTC complaints here.

What are your comments on this topic?

Jimmie Mesis, Editor-in-Chief
PI Magazine

It’s the season when government agencies attend to their voter registration online access. Election time presents a good opportunity to call people for information gathering. I’ll leave the details to your imagination, but in the interim check the New York Voter Registration Search at the NYS Voter site, operated by the New York Board of Elections. A search to confirm voter registration status requires first and last name, date of birth, county and zip code.

There may be less demand for this service, but South Dakota Secretary of State Voter Registration Portal has added voter lookup by name and date of birth.

Law enforcement agencies may release motor vehicle reports that they obtained in the course of an investigation in response to a public records request, according to an opinion issued by the Wisconsin Attorney General.

Van Hollen reasoned that the DPPA identifies certain permissible uses for which a state motor vehicle department (a “DMV”) may disclose specified personal information from motor vehicle records. It is a permissible use for a DMV to disclose personal information “[f]or use by any government agency, including any court or law enforcement agency in carrying out its functions . . ..”

Van Hollen further reasoned that the Wisconsin Public Records Law imposes a statutory duty on law enforcement agencies to respond to public records requests. In the course of carrying out its functions, including responding to public records requests, a law enforcement agency therefore may disclose personal information obtained from a DMV that is included in law enforcement agency records responsive to such requests.

Some personal information may be redacted, as specified in other laws.

Impersonating someone to a government agency or hiring another to carry out this ruse could result in a criminal prosecution.

The operators of BNT Investigations, which was not licensed in Washington state, where they were based, plead guilty to crimes that carry a minimum 2-year sentence. They “assumed the individuals’ identities and persuaded government agencies such as the Internal Revenue Service, the Social Security Administration and state labor departments to hand over tax, wage and other confidential records.” Private investigators from various states who submitted personally identifying information to the firm were also indicted and are still awaiting trial.

Private investigators, insurance companies and attorneys who hire others obtain personal information should confirm that they do not get unauthorized personal information from a government agency. Other laws invoke penalties for using subterfuge (not necessarily impersonating the subject) to secure telephone records from the provider or financial information from banks and account holders. Our clients don’t necessarily know this. It’s our job to educate them.

Data reseller USSearch.com will pay $250,000 for accessing and selling non-public personally identifiable information obtained from credit bureaus. The New York Attorney General determined that US Search illegally accessed the consumer information more than 2,385 times. If they sold each report for 100 bucks that would just cover the fine and penalties. Then there’s the litigation costs…

The recent California Supreme Court decision overturning California’s law banning same-sex marriage as unconstitutional provides a timely discussion of the domestic partnership registry. California, among other states and municipalities provides a means for couples — variously, same or opposite sex in civil unions or domestic partnerships — to register their relationship.

I don’t know of any online database of names of registered domestic partners, but there are data sources. This is the old-fashioned and still often the most reliable means of confirming a fact: call or visit the relevant government office! In California, the Secretary of State records the Declaration of Domestic Partnership and the Termination of Domestic Partnership. This office responds to telephone inquiries and will search by a name, providing the partner name, date of registration and the residential address. You can also go to one of the offices to get a copy of either form.

Oregon defines a domestic partnership registration as a vital record, which is confidential. Domestic Partnership Registration in New York City is with the City Clerk. County Recorder offices and state health departments are also repositories for these filings. Some cities, counties and states that have civil union or domestic partnership laws are listed here.

Currently, there are 49,550 registrations on file at the California Secretary of State. Of these, about 5,600 have filed terminations. By law, this office only accepts terminations up to 5 years after registration. Beyond that time, couples must go to court to end a domestic partnership.

What has been your experience requesting information from a domestic partnership registry?

It looks like the California Assembly bill that would have created an Internet Domestic Violence Registry has excised that feature from the recent draft.

The California Sheriffs’ Association has announced that VINELink will soon include all California counties, not just the 17 that are currently at that site. VINELink provides real-time status of offenders in county jails.

Private investigators will have more difficulty finding people in California if proposed legislation, Senate Bill 1423, becomes law. The bill titled, “Unlisted telephone numbers”, would ban phone companies from charging a fee to their subscribers who wish to have their phone numbers unlisted or nonpublished. In that case, won’t everyone in California request that their telephone number listing be private?

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a law firm that obtained Florida vehicle record information for litigation purposes. The plaintiff had claimed that the firm violated the federal Driver’s Privacy Protection Act in purchasing his vehicle ownership data, but the court said that the law firm met one of the permitted exceptions. However, pending cases may lead to settlements in which ChoicePoint (and other public record providers) voluntarily agree to limit the personal information they release, even if the sale of the data complies with the law.

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled in favor of a newspaper which sought a list of names and addresses of foster care providers maintained by a state family services agency. In a complicated intersection of Ohio state public records access law and federal funding restrictions, the agency must determine which records meet the Social Security Act exception to disclosure.

The Marin Independent Journal prevailed in its 2 year tussle with the county to obtain county employees salaries, finally decided by the 1st District Court of Appeal. And the newspaper has made county salary data available at its Web site. Salaries of earners over $100, 000 can be searched by name or agency at the Marin Independent Journal. I have a link to this and all other salary databases across the USA that I’ve been able to identify.

The Missouri Attorney General is seeking to shut down Web sites that sell personal information, such as Social Security numbers, to the general public on Missouri residents. The current lawsuit names A1 Peoplesearch, LLC. A recently prior action seeks to stop Publicdata.com from selling the same type of personal information. Even though the companies are based outside Missouri they are selling data with Social Security numbers and dates of birth of Missouri residents. The Jackson County Circuit court issued a restraining order last week prohibiting A1peoplesearch “from selling such information about Missourians or allowing consumers to search its database using Missourians’ Social Security numbers.”

The New Jersey Supreme Court has broken new ground in its ruling that Internet service providers cannot release users’ personal information without a valid subpoena. A local police department investigating a possible computer access crime submitted a subpoena to the Internet Service Provider that wasn’t associated with any filed court case. The court determined that under the New Jersey constitution residents have more extensive privacy rights than provided in the U.S. constitution.

Find a Wisconsin voter’s address, voter registration status, party affiliation, data of registration and voting history for current and inactive Wisconsin voters. The search requires the input of the first and last name and date of birth.

In a prior roundup of government sites with voter registration lookups, I forgot to mention the National Association of Secretaries of State collection of voter registration record verifications. This isn’t a comprehensive list, and some of the links were dead the last time I checked, but it’s worth adding to your bookmarks.

Want to find some of these links on your own? Try using the following phrases in your search engine: “Am I registered to vote?” and “Look up your voter registration”.

If you’re researching background on health care providers take a look at the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System database. You’ll find any type of medical service provider who accepts Medicare or Medicaid. Search by partial name, city, state or zip code. Results may include home address, business address and telephone number, type of service offered, professional license type and number, and the states in which they are licensed.

The database isn’t limited to licensed professionals; it also includes case managers and addiction recovery service staff, among others. Some non doctor licensees include acupuncturists, chiropractors, physical therapists and nurses.

Addiction recovery counselors in California may be certified by any accredited organization. Two certification databases are at the California Certification Board of Alcohol and Drug Counselors and the California Association of Addiction Recovery Resources. Find people working as alcohol and drug counselors, who may not be certified, at the American Academy of Health Care Providers in the Addictive Disorders database. This site also lists the employers.

The New Hampshire Department of Corrections Offender Locater database can be searched by partial last name. The inmate search covers inmates currently in a Department of Correction facility. Results include Date of Birth, Prisoner ID#, Booked Date, Current Parole Date, Maximum Parole Date, Facility, Case ID, Offense Date, Court Docket and Conviction Crime.

Note the Department of Corrections explanation of the sentencing dates listed for the inmate:

The inmate locater displays all sentencing information currently available. Only the current controlling sentence shows the original minimum and original maximum release dates. Offenders with consecutive sentences remaining to be served, technical parole violators, and/or non-New Hampshire state-sentenced offenders serving sentences in New Hampshire facilities may not include the original minimum or original maximum release dates because this data is either not available or has not been fully calculated.

Pacific Information Resources, Inc., familiarly known as Search Systems, has released a guide to researching criminal records. The document is viewable online and can also be downloaded as a PDF. Search Systems provides links to commercial and government-operated databases of public record information on the Internet. Most of these are free, but access to the huge collection has a small fee.

The site categorizes links to all imaginable public records that are available on the Internet. Some popular types of public records included are: Births, Marriages and Deaths, Corporations, Court Records, Fictitious Business Names, Professional Licenses, Real Property, Recorded Documents, and Voter Registrations.

The Criminal Records Search Guide addresses the myth of a nationwide criminal records database and lists the different types of criminal records and their agency source. It also identifies non court records of sanctions and enforcement databases. This is a basic tutorial, designed for the casual or non professional researcher.

But the primary emphasis is on the Search Systems collection of criminal records — both the free links, called DirectPass, and the fee-based criminal records database, part of the Premium searches. Premium searches are discounted for DirectPass subscribers, but incur an additional fee.

The Premium criminal records content is from a commercial database but is reformatted by Search Systems, usable as a cut-and-paste text document. The text formatting enhances this product over the html one of the data provider. Search by full or partial first and last name, with an option to limit by date of birth or year of birth. The cost is $7 per state search or $19 for a search of all available jurisdictions, if you are a subscriber to DirectPass.

The most comprehensive search of criminal records will utilize the free government-sponsored sites — those listed in the DirectPass collection and Internet sources that haven’t yet found their way into the Search Systems public records. Also, a comprehensive search for criminal records must include a commercial database — probably 2 to 3 databases, depending on the jurisdiction one is searching. There is no substitute for hand searching court records, whether or not the particular jurisdiction is encompassed in the online records.

Review the professional and disciplinary background of 44,000 physicians and surgeons licensed to practice in Illinois. Search the database by doctor’s partial first name, partial last name, city, specialty keyword or hospital affiliation. Select a physician’s name to see specialty certifications, legal and disciplinary actions for the past 5 years, and resume details. Disciplinary listings may point to licenses issued in other states, malpractice judgments and claim settlement amounts.

The announcement of the database was issued by Gov. Blagojevich:

Over 85 percent of all licensed physicians and surgeons have provided the information necessary to create their profile in categories that include: the location and scope of practice, the type of insurance the physician accepts, specialties and certifications, legal and disciplinary actions taken against the physician, his or her educational background and any professional activities or honors the physician would like to add. Physicians’ licenses are subject to renewal in July 2008. Before a license is renewed, physicians must provide the information for their profiles.