Re: Disclosure of Criminal History Information

[Guest guest]

Another chapter to the book, it is my understanding that anytime you recertify

with the state you are required to pay $15 and get a CCH to send with your

application. The funny thing is that you or I can get it via internet for only

$3 from the same people (Tx DPS).

Lee

Disclosure of Criminal History Information

All -

I have a rather serious question. I am a paramedic and also hold a

peace officer license from Texas. I'm very, very aware of the

regulations surrounding disclosure of criminal history information.

So, with that in mind, I was browsing the Texas EMS Certification

Query page (http://www.tdh.state.tx.us/hcqs/ems, then click on

Certification Query). This is a public database of names, personnel

ID's (not SSN's) and current licensure/certification status for EMT,

EMT-I and paramedic personnel in Texas.

While running several names through the database, one of the persons I

checked status on came back with an entry indicating that their status

was on hold pending a review of criminal history information. It did

NOT specifically indicate that the person had a criminal history, or

any specific charge information, but it would seem to me that TDH/DSHS

may be revealing that someone has (or potentially has) a criminal

history simply by listing " criminal history review " as a part of an

person's status.

More specifically, their web site gives the following description for

that status entry:

Criminal History Review: Selected for evaluation of criminal history.

Deficencies of " Review of Criminal History " or " QI Review " may take 2

weeks or longer to clear. We will contact you by mail if additional

information is required.

So, the question to someone who knows: is this ethical? If a

candidate submits an application to DSHS in which they list some form

of criminal history, expecting that this information will remain

confidential, is DSHS in violation of any state laws with regards to

disclosure by listing this candidate as under " review of criminal

history " in their public database? Furthermore, if it's legal, is it

ethical? Should DSHS really be posting that people may/may not have a

criminal history in the public certquery database?

Obviously criminal histories need to be reviewed by DSHS and by

employers making hiring decisions. I'm not arguing that any heinous

criminal should be able to hide their history from everyone. I'm

asking whether or not DSHS being the " discloser " of the mere fact that

someone has a criminal history (which, in most cases, is public

information for anyone investing in the time to do the search)...

Your thoughts?

Mike

PS - It's not me. Feel free to certquery me - I'm Wayne , ID

50326.

[Guest guest]

Another chapter to the book, it is my understanding that anytime you recertify

with the state you are required to pay $15 and get a CCH to send with your

application. The funny thing is that you or I can get it via internet for only

$3 from the same people (Tx DPS).

Lee

Disclosure of Criminal History Information

All -

I have a rather serious question. I am a paramedic and also hold a

peace officer license from Texas. I'm very, very aware of the

regulations surrounding disclosure of criminal history information.

So, with that in mind, I was browsing the Texas EMS Certification

Query page (http://www.tdh.state.tx.us/hcqs/ems, then click on

Certification Query). This is a public database of names, personnel

ID's (not SSN's) and current licensure/certification status for EMT,

EMT-I and paramedic personnel in Texas.

While running several names through the database, one of the persons I

checked status on came back with an entry indicating that their status

was on hold pending a review of criminal history information. It did

NOT specifically indicate that the person had a criminal history, or

any specific charge information, but it would seem to me that TDH/DSHS

may be revealing that someone has (or potentially has) a criminal

history simply by listing " criminal history review " as a part of an

person's status.

More specifically, their web site gives the following description for

that status entry:

Criminal History Review: Selected for evaluation of criminal history.

Deficencies of " Review of Criminal History " or " QI Review " may take 2

weeks or longer to clear. We will contact you by mail if additional

information is required.

So, the question to someone who knows: is this ethical? If a

candidate submits an application to DSHS in which they list some form

of criminal history, expecting that this information will remain

confidential, is DSHS in violation of any state laws with regards to

disclosure by listing this candidate as under " review of criminal

history " in their public database? Furthermore, if it's legal, is it

ethical? Should DSHS really be posting that people may/may not have a

criminal history in the public certquery database?

Obviously criminal histories need to be reviewed by DSHS and by

employers making hiring decisions. I'm not arguing that any heinous

criminal should be able to hide their history from everyone. I'm

asking whether or not DSHS being the " discloser " of the mere fact that

someone has a criminal history (which, in most cases, is public

information for anyone investing in the time to do the search)...

Your thoughts?

Mike

PS - It's not me. Feel free to certquery me - I'm Wayne , ID

50326.

[Guest guest]

That was not required of me last time I recertified - when did that go

into effect?

Mike

PS - The CCH that you can get on yourself is *not* as involved as what

a law enforcement agency can generate, which is why there is such

strict policy with law enforcement agencies/DPS (which manages the

data in Texas) with regards to acquisition, use, and dissemenation of

CCH data.

> Another chapter to the book, it is my understanding that anytime you

recertify with the state you are required to pay $15 and get a CCH to

send with your application. The funny thing is that you or I can get

it via internet for only $3 from the same people (Tx DPS).

>

> Lee

[Guest guest]

Hi Mike,

Fist off, let me say that I'm not an expert on law, but I've been involved

in law enforcement off and on for many years in one form or another. I

served as a Municipal Court Judge for several years, and during our annual

training in Austin, I remember a class on ethics that may address your

concerns. Basically, (if I remember correctly) parts of your criminal

history are considered public record. You can go to the DPS Records website

(http://records.txdps.state.tx.us/) and for a nominal fee, search a persons

history. Brazoria County Sheriffs Department has a link to check court

proceedings, both civil and criminal on their website. The information on

both the sites have a great deal more detail than that given on the

certification query.

As far as ethics, I must admit, I'm a bit uncomfortable with the notation on

the certification query, but as you stated in your post, it is a valuable

tool for Administrators to check to see if a person is actually certified,

and if there is a criminal history issue. If I were the person who had the

notation, I'd probably be miffed, but I don't believe that DSHS has

committed an breach of law and ethics.

Once again, I'm no expert on law, but I hope this helps.

Steve M. Boykin, EMT-Intermediate

Disclosure of Criminal History Information

>

> All -

>

> I have a rather serious question. I am a paramedic and also hold a

> peace officer license from Texas. I'm very, very aware of the

> regulations surrounding disclosure of criminal history information.

> So, with that in mind, I was browsing the Texas EMS Certification

> Query page (http://www.tdh.state.tx.us/hcqs/ems, then click on

> Certification Query). This is a public database of names, personnel

> ID's (not SSN's) and current licensure/certification status for EMT,

> EMT-I and paramedic personnel in Texas.

>

> While running several names through the database, one of the persons I

> checked status on came back with an entry indicating that their status

> was on hold pending a review of criminal history information. It did

> NOT specifically indicate that the person had a criminal history, or

> any specific charge information, but it would seem to me that TDH/DSHS

> may be revealing that someone has (or potentially has) a criminal

> history simply by listing " criminal history review " as a part of an

> person's status.

>

> More specifically, their web site gives the following description for

> that status entry:

> Criminal History Review: Selected for evaluation of criminal history.

> Deficencies of " Review of Criminal History " or " QI Review " may take 2

> weeks or longer to clear. We will contact you by mail if additional

> information is required.

>

> So, the question to someone who knows: is this ethical? If a

> candidate submits an application to DSHS in which they list some form

> of criminal history, expecting that this information will remain

> confidential, is DSHS in violation of any state laws with regards to

> disclosure by listing this candidate as under " review of criminal

> history " in their public database? Furthermore, if it's legal, is it

> ethical? Should DSHS really be posting that people may/may not have a

> criminal history in the public certquery database?

>

> Obviously criminal histories need to be reviewed by DSHS and by

> employers making hiring decisions. I'm not arguing that any heinous

> criminal should be able to hide their history from everyone. I'm

> asking whether or not DSHS being the " discloser " of the mere fact that

> someone has a criminal history (which, in most cases, is public

> information for anyone investing in the time to do the search)...

>

> Your thoughts?

>

> Mike

>

> PS - It's not me. Feel free to certquery me - I'm Wayne , ID

50326.

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Mike,

Fist off, let me say that I'm not an expert on law, but I've been involved

in law enforcement off and on for many years in one form or another. I

served as a Municipal Court Judge for several years, and during our annual

training in Austin, I remember a class on ethics that may address your

concerns. Basically, (if I remember correctly) parts of your criminal

history are considered public record. You can go to the DPS Records website

(http://records.txdps.state.tx.us/) and for a nominal fee, search a persons

history. Brazoria County Sheriffs Department has a link to check court

proceedings, both civil and criminal on their website. The information on

both the sites have a great deal more detail than that given on the

certification query.

As far as ethics, I must admit, I'm a bit uncomfortable with the notation on

the certification query, but as you stated in your post, it is a valuable

tool for Administrators to check to see if a person is actually certified,

and if there is a criminal history issue. If I were the person who had the

notation, I'd probably be miffed, but I don't believe that DSHS has

committed an breach of law and ethics.

Once again, I'm no expert on law, but I hope this helps.

Steve M. Boykin, EMT-Intermediate

Disclosure of Criminal History Information

>

> All -

>

> I have a rather serious question. I am a paramedic and also hold a

> peace officer license from Texas. I'm very, very aware of the

> regulations surrounding disclosure of criminal history information.

> So, with that in mind, I was browsing the Texas EMS Certification

> Query page (http://www.tdh.state.tx.us/hcqs/ems, then click on

> Certification Query). This is a public database of names, personnel

> ID's (not SSN's) and current licensure/certification status for EMT,

> EMT-I and paramedic personnel in Texas.

>

> While running several names through the database, one of the persons I

> checked status on came back with an entry indicating that their status

> was on hold pending a review of criminal history information. It did

> NOT specifically indicate that the person had a criminal history, or

> any specific charge information, but it would seem to me that TDH/DSHS

> may be revealing that someone has (or potentially has) a criminal

> history simply by listing " criminal history review " as a part of an

> person's status.

>

> More specifically, their web site gives the following description for

> that status entry:

> Criminal History Review: Selected for evaluation of criminal history.

> Deficencies of " Review of Criminal History " or " QI Review " may take 2

> weeks or longer to clear. We will contact you by mail if additional

> information is required.

>

> So, the question to someone who knows: is this ethical? If a

> candidate submits an application to DSHS in which they list some form

> of criminal history, expecting that this information will remain

> confidential, is DSHS in violation of any state laws with regards to

> disclosure by listing this candidate as under " review of criminal

> history " in their public database? Furthermore, if it's legal, is it

> ethical? Should DSHS really be posting that people may/may not have a

> criminal history in the public certquery database?

>

> Obviously criminal histories need to be reviewed by DSHS and by

> employers making hiring decisions. I'm not arguing that any heinous

> criminal should be able to hide their history from everyone. I'm

> asking whether or not DSHS being the " discloser " of the mere fact that

> someone has a criminal history (which, in most cases, is public

> information for anyone investing in the time to do the search)...

>

> Your thoughts?

>

> Mike

>

> PS - It's not me. Feel free to certquery me - I'm Wayne , ID

50326.

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:51:45 -0600, Steve M. Boykin

wrote:

>

> As far as ethics, I must admit, I'm a bit uncomfortable with the notation on

> the certification query, but as you stated in your post, it is a valuable

> tool for Administrators to check to see if a person is actually certified,

> and if there is a criminal history issue.

Hopefully administrators are NOT using this for ciminal history

reviews, because once this person is " approved " and

cerfitifed/licensed by the State, this deficiency notification will go

away and no longer be visible on Certquery.

My issue is that in the interim, whether or not this person has a

criminal history (I don't know if they do, and DSHS's web site doesn't

make it clear whether or not the check is being done on EVERYONE now,

or just this particular person, or randomly), any person checking on

them via CertQuery now at least has a raised index of suspicion that

this applicant might have a crinimal history.

Again - I'm not against DSHS doing checks. Not in the least.

I am, however, against unintentional disclosure that could bring harm

when revealed in a public manner. Being that it's not me, though, all

I can do is pontificate the point...

Mike

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:51:45 -0600, Steve M. Boykin

wrote:

>

> As far as ethics, I must admit, I'm a bit uncomfortable with the notation on

> the certification query, but as you stated in your post, it is a valuable

> tool for Administrators to check to see if a person is actually certified,

> and if there is a criminal history issue.

Hopefully administrators are NOT using this for ciminal history

reviews, because once this person is " approved " and

cerfitifed/licensed by the State, this deficiency notification will go

away and no longer be visible on Certquery.

My issue is that in the interim, whether or not this person has a

criminal history (I don't know if they do, and DSHS's web site doesn't

make it clear whether or not the check is being done on EVERYONE now,

or just this particular person, or randomly), any person checking on

them via CertQuery now at least has a raised index of suspicion that

this applicant might have a crinimal history.

Again - I'm not against DSHS doing checks. Not in the least.

I am, however, against unintentional disclosure that could bring harm

when revealed in a public manner. Being that it's not me, though, all

I can do is pontificate the point...

Mike

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:51:45 -0600, Steve M. Boykin

wrote:

>

> As far as ethics, I must admit, I'm a bit uncomfortable with the notation on

> the certification query, but as you stated in your post, it is a valuable

> tool for Administrators to check to see if a person is actually certified,

> and if there is a criminal history issue.

Hopefully administrators are NOT using this for ciminal history

reviews, because once this person is " approved " and

cerfitifed/licensed by the State, this deficiency notification will go

away and no longer be visible on Certquery.

My issue is that in the interim, whether or not this person has a

criminal history (I don't know if they do, and DSHS's web site doesn't

make it clear whether or not the check is being done on EVERYONE now,

or just this particular person, or randomly), any person checking on

them via CertQuery now at least has a raised index of suspicion that

this applicant might have a crinimal history.

Again - I'm not against DSHS doing checks. Not in the least.

I am, however, against unintentional disclosure that could bring harm

when revealed in a public manner. Being that it's not me, though, all

I can do is pontificate the point...

Mike

[Guest guest]

Hi Mike,

I appreciate your reply and your concern. My point in the previous message

was that the notation on the query would be a quick indicator(or flag) that

would lead an administrator to check that person's status a bit deeper, not

that it would be the only tool used. I do agree however, that unnecessary

disclosure could be harmful, but in the DSHS case, I don't believe they've

stepped over the line.

Just my thoughts.

Steve M. Boykin, EMT- Intermediate

[Guest guest]

Hi Mike,

I appreciate your reply and your concern. My point in the previous message

was that the notation on the query would be a quick indicator(or flag) that

would lead an administrator to check that person's status a bit deeper, not

that it would be the only tool used. I do agree however, that unnecessary

disclosure could be harmful, but in the DSHS case, I don't believe they've

stepped over the line.

Just my thoughts.

Steve M. Boykin, EMT- Intermediate

[Guest guest]

Hi Mike,

I appreciate your reply and your concern. My point in the previous message

was that the notation on the query would be a quick indicator(or flag) that

would lead an administrator to check that person's status a bit deeper, not

that it would be the only tool used. I do agree however, that unnecessary

disclosure could be harmful, but in the DSHS case, I don't believe they've

stepped over the line.

Just my thoughts.

Steve M. Boykin, EMT- Intermediate

[Guest guest]

I am referring the the TxDPS CCH that only select organizations can access by

setting up an account with them. Agencies allowed are like government and

schools (colleges etc). I do not know when this other went into effect, I know

folks who renewed within the last 3-6 months that had to do it.

Lee

Re: Disclosure of Criminal History Information

That was not required of me last time I recertified - when did that go

into effect?

Mike

PS - The CCH that you can get on yourself is *not* as involved as what

a law enforcement agency can generate, which is why there is such

strict policy with law enforcement agencies/DPS (which manages the

data in Texas) with regards to acquisition, use, and dissemenation of

CCH data.

> Another chapter to the book, it is my understanding that anytime you

recertify with the state you are required to pay $15 and get a CCH to

send with your application. The funny thing is that you or I can get

it via internet for only $3 from the same people (Tx DPS).

>

> Lee

[Guest guest]

I'm new to this group, but this topic piqued my interest. Having

been in EMS for about 11 years now, and also having been involved

with Law Enforcement in periphery for several years, I think that I

can understand the " spirit " of DSHS decision to do the checks, but I

don't agree that they should post it online. As a matter of fact, I

had this *very* issue come up today. I have applied to work part

time for a local service. The manager called me and specifically

asked me " I checked your status, and it says 'Pending deficiency,

pending criminal history', what's that all about? " In other words,

I am increasing my cert level to Paramedic from Intermediate, and I

have that deficiency as of today, and my new employer had serious

concerns about it, and actually called me to confront me about

my " criminal history " . I think that *most* employers out there

aren't aware of this new policy, and while I personally don't mind

that DSHS runs a CHECK, since I have nothing to hide, I get the

distinct feeling that it may have almost cost me the opportunity to

get a new job. The fix may even be as simple as changing the

wording... maybe " pending review " or Pending penguins flying " ... or

whatever legal jabber-word they want to use. It's so ambiguous

right now that you can't tell if they *do* or *do not* have a

criminal history, and that leaves it wide open for mis-

interpretation. And, just my $0.02, For an agency that claims to be

stream-lining and trying to cut costs, running a CCH on *every*

applicant not only takes resource hours, but costs a pretty penny as

well I imagine.

-WalksAlone :-)

> Hi Mike,

>

> I appreciate your reply and your concern. My point in the

previous message

> was that the notation on the query would be a quick indicator(or

flag) that

> would lead an administrator to check that person's status a bit

deeper, not

> that it would be the only tool used. I do agree however, that

unnecessary

> disclosure could be harmful, but in the DSHS case, I don't believe

they've

> stepped over the line.

>

> Just my thoughts.

>

> Steve M. Boykin, EMT- Intermediate

[Guest guest]

As I remember from my law enforcement days, Final Conviction

information is public record. Arrest and investigation information

is protected.

Also, law enforcement has responsibility to safeguard the information

maintained in law enforcement records (CCH type data, local records,

NCIC/TCIC information). But TDH is an outside party, so the

responsibility to limit disclosure may not be with them, but

with whomever they make a request from. Similarly, if I want

records on a potential employee, the privacy act restricts what

law enforcement can tell me. But it doesn't limit me on what

I can do (there are of course other statutes in the employment

law realm for that).

So, TDwhatevertheyarenow may not be as responsible as law enforcement,

who are still the gatekeepers.

=Steve=

Steve , LP

AlertCPR Emergency Training

2300 Highland Village Rd, Suite 340

Highland Village, TX 75077

>--- Original Message ---

>

>To: < >

>Date: 1/10/05 3:38:08 PM

>

>Hi Mike,

>

>I appreciate your reply and your concern. My point in the previous

message

>was that the notation on the query would be a quick indicator(or

flag) that

>would lead an administrator to check that person's status a

bit deeper, not

>that it would be the only tool used. I do agree however, that

unnecessary

>disclosure could be harmful, but in the DSHS case, I don't believe

they've

>stepped over the line.

>

>Just my thoughts.

>

>Steve M. Boykin, EMT- Intermediate

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

As I remember from my law enforcement days, Final Conviction

information is public record. Arrest and investigation information

is protected.

Also, law enforcement has responsibility to safeguard the information

maintained in law enforcement records (CCH type data, local records,

NCIC/TCIC information). But TDH is an outside party, so the

responsibility to limit disclosure may not be with them, but

with whomever they make a request from. Similarly, if I want

records on a potential employee, the privacy act restricts what

law enforcement can tell me. But it doesn't limit me on what

I can do (there are of course other statutes in the employment

law realm for that).

So, TDwhatevertheyarenow may not be as responsible as law enforcement,

who are still the gatekeepers.

=Steve=

Steve , LP

AlertCPR Emergency Training

2300 Highland Village Rd, Suite 340

Highland Village, TX 75077

>--- Original Message ---

>

>To: < >

>Date: 1/10/05 3:38:08 PM

>

>Hi Mike,

>

>I appreciate your reply and your concern. My point in the previous

message

>was that the notation on the query would be a quick indicator(or

flag) that

>would lead an administrator to check that person's status a

bit deeper, not

>that it would be the only tool used. I do agree however, that

unnecessary

>disclosure could be harmful, but in the DSHS case, I don't believe

they've

>stepped over the line.

>

>Just my thoughts.

>

>Steve M. Boykin, EMT- Intermediate

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

As I remember from my law enforcement days, Final Conviction

information is public record. Arrest and investigation information

is protected.

Also, law enforcement has responsibility to safeguard the information

maintained in law enforcement records (CCH type data, local records,

NCIC/TCIC information). But TDH is an outside party, so the

responsibility to limit disclosure may not be with them, but

with whomever they make a request from. Similarly, if I want

records on a potential employee, the privacy act restricts what

law enforcement can tell me. But it doesn't limit me on what

I can do (there are of course other statutes in the employment

law realm for that).

So, TDwhatevertheyarenow may not be as responsible as law enforcement,

who are still the gatekeepers.

=Steve=

Steve , LP

AlertCPR Emergency Training

2300 Highland Village Rd, Suite 340

Highland Village, TX 75077

>--- Original Message ---

>

>To: < >

>Date: 1/10/05 3:38:08 PM

>

>Hi Mike,

>

>I appreciate your reply and your concern. My point in the previous

message

>was that the notation on the query would be a quick indicator(or

flag) that

>would lead an administrator to check that person's status a

bit deeper, not

>that it would be the only tool used. I do agree however, that

unnecessary

>disclosure could be harmful, but in the DSHS case, I don't believe

they've

>stepped over the line.

>

>Just my thoughts.

>

>Steve M. Boykin, EMT- Intermediate

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I think the site Lee is referring to will only show final conviction records and

only for Texas offenses.

Jane Hill

-------------- Original message from " Steve , LP " :

--------------

As I remember from my law enforcement days, Final Conviction

information is public record. Arrest and investigation information

is protected.

Also, law enforcement has responsibility to safeguard the information

maintained in law enforcement records (CCH type data, local records,

NCIC/TCIC information). But TDH is an outside party, so the

responsibility to limit disclosure may not be with them, but

with whomever they make a request from. Similarly, if I want

records on a potential employee, the privacy act restricts what

law enforcement can tell me. But it doesn't limit me on what

I can do (there are of course other statutes in the employment

law realm for that).

So, TDwhatevertheyarenow may not be as responsible as law enforcement,

who are still the gatekeepers.

=Steve=

Steve , LP

AlertCPR Emergency Training

2300 Highland Village Rd, Suite 340

Highland Village, TX 75077

>--- Original Message ---

>

>To: < >

>Date: 1/10/05 3:38:08 PM

>

>Hi Mike,

>

>I appreciate your reply and your concern. My point in the previous

message

>was that the notation on the query would be a quick indicator(or

flag) that

>would lead an administrator to check that person's status a

bit deeper, not

>that it would be the only tool used. I do agree however, that

unnecessary

>disclosure could be harmful, but in the DSHS case, I don't believe

they've

>stepped over the line.

>

>Just my thoughts.

>

>Steve M. Boykin, EMT- Intermediate

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I think the site Lee is referring to will only show final conviction records and

only for Texas offenses.

Jane Hill

-------------- Original message from " Steve , LP " :

--------------

As I remember from my law enforcement days, Final Conviction

information is public record. Arrest and investigation information

is protected.

Also, law enforcement has responsibility to safeguard the information

maintained in law enforcement records (CCH type data, local records,

NCIC/TCIC information). But TDH is an outside party, so the

responsibility to limit disclosure may not be with them, but

with whomever they make a request from. Similarly, if I want

records on a potential employee, the privacy act restricts what

law enforcement can tell me. But it doesn't limit me on what

I can do (there are of course other statutes in the employment

law realm for that).

So, TDwhatevertheyarenow may not be as responsible as law enforcement,

who are still the gatekeepers.

=Steve=

Steve , LP

AlertCPR Emergency Training

2300 Highland Village Rd, Suite 340

Highland Village, TX 75077

>--- Original Message ---

>

>To: < >

>Date: 1/10/05 3:38:08 PM

>

>Hi Mike,

>

>I appreciate your reply and your concern. My point in the previous

message

>was that the notation on the query would be a quick indicator(or

flag) that

>would lead an administrator to check that person's status a

bit deeper, not

>that it would be the only tool used. I do agree however, that

unnecessary

>disclosure could be harmful, but in the DSHS case, I don't believe

they've

>stepped over the line.

>

>Just my thoughts.

>

>Steve M. Boykin, EMT- Intermediate

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:00:55 -0800, Steve , LP

wrote:

>

>

> As I remember from my law enforcement days, Final Conviction

> information is public record. Arrest and investigation information

> is protected.

Legally, that's probably correct. From a policy standpoint, every law

enforcement agency I've ever been with strictly stated that any CCH

information was non-disclosable. Though you're right that it's

probably more of a liability limiter than the following of the letter

of any law.

> So, TDwhatevertheyarenow may not be as responsible as law enforcement,

> who are still the gatekeepers.

That's probably right. For example, if a newspaper obtained the

information from somewhere (not illegally on the newspaper's part),

I'd doubt that they'd be criminally liable for disclosure - and if

it's true they're likely not going to be found civilly liable for

anything.

That said, if a newspaper published a list of citizens and simply

noted that " these citizens are under review of criminal history before

we call them citizens, " it might be fair to assume that were one of

these folks denied a job, place to live, etc. based on the simple

notation of the newspaper that they were under review, the newspaper

might be partially liable. The legal eagles among us would have to

search case law on this...

Mike

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:00:55 -0800, Steve , LP

wrote:

>

>

> As I remember from my law enforcement days, Final Conviction

> information is public record. Arrest and investigation information

> is protected.

Legally, that's probably correct. From a policy standpoint, every law

enforcement agency I've ever been with strictly stated that any CCH

information was non-disclosable. Though you're right that it's

probably more of a liability limiter than the following of the letter

of any law.

> So, TDwhatevertheyarenow may not be as responsible as law enforcement,

> who are still the gatekeepers.

That's probably right. For example, if a newspaper obtained the

information from somewhere (not illegally on the newspaper's part),

I'd doubt that they'd be criminally liable for disclosure - and if

it's true they're likely not going to be found civilly liable for

anything.

That said, if a newspaper published a list of citizens and simply

noted that " these citizens are under review of criminal history before

we call them citizens, " it might be fair to assume that were one of

these folks denied a job, place to live, etc. based on the simple

notation of the newspaper that they were under review, the newspaper

might be partially liable. The legal eagles among us would have to

search case law on this...

Mike

[Guest guest]

If I remember correctly from the last coordinators class

in November in Austin, Tony said that everyone who

certifies or recertifies will have a criminal check done

on them. The exact reason I don't recall. Tony would

probably be glad to tell you. Myron Schmiedekamp EMT-B

Coordinator

San Angelo Emergency Corp

Carlsbad VFD-FRO

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:54:24 -0600

" Lee "

wrote:

>

> I am referring the the TxDPS CCH that only select

>organizations can access by setting up an account with

>them. Agencies allowed are like government and schools

>(colleges etc). I do not know when this other went into

>effect, I know folks who renewed within the last 3-6

>months that had to do it.

>

> Lee

>

> Re: Disclosure of Criminal

>History Information

>

>

>

>

>

> That was not required of me last time I recertified -

>when did that go

> into effect?

>

> Mike

>

> PS - The CCH that you can get on yourself is *not* as

>involved as what

> a law enforcement agency can generate, which is why

>there is such

> strict policy with law enforcement agencies/DPS (which

>manages the

> data in Texas) with regards to acquisition, use, and

>dissemenation of

> CCH data.

>

>

> > Another chapter to the book, it is my understanding

>that anytime you

> recertify with the state you are required to pay $15

>and get a CCH to

> send with your application. The funny thing is that

>you or I can get

> it via internet for only $3 from the same people (Tx

>DPS).

> >

> > Lee

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

If I remember correctly from the last coordinators class

in November in Austin, Tony said that everyone who

certifies or recertifies will have a criminal check done

on them. The exact reason I don't recall. Tony would

probably be glad to tell you. Myron Schmiedekamp EMT-B

Coordinator

San Angelo Emergency Corp

Carlsbad VFD-FRO

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:54:24 -0600

" Lee "

wrote:

>

> I am referring the the TxDPS CCH that only select

>organizations can access by setting up an account with

>them. Agencies allowed are like government and schools

>(colleges etc). I do not know when this other went into

>effect, I know folks who renewed within the last 3-6

>months that had to do it.

>

> Lee

>

> Re: Disclosure of Criminal

>History Information

>

>

>

>

>

> That was not required of me last time I recertified -

>when did that go

> into effect?

>

> Mike

>

> PS - The CCH that you can get on yourself is *not* as

>involved as what

> a law enforcement agency can generate, which is why

>there is such

> strict policy with law enforcement agencies/DPS (which

>manages the

> data in Texas) with regards to acquisition, use, and

>dissemenation of

> CCH data.

>

>

> > Another chapter to the book, it is my understanding

>that anytime you

> recertify with the state you are required to pay $15

>and get a CCH to

> send with your application. The funny thing is that

>you or I can get

> it via internet for only $3 from the same people (Tx

>DPS).

> >

> > Lee

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

If I remember correctly from the last coordinators class

in November in Austin, Tony said that everyone who

certifies or recertifies will have a criminal check done

on them. The exact reason I don't recall. Tony would

probably be glad to tell you. Myron Schmiedekamp EMT-B

Coordinator

San Angelo Emergency Corp

Carlsbad VFD-FRO

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:54:24 -0600

" Lee "

wrote:

>

> I am referring the the TxDPS CCH that only select

>organizations can access by setting up an account with

>them. Agencies allowed are like government and schools

>(colleges etc). I do not know when this other went into

>effect, I know folks who renewed within the last 3-6

>months that had to do it.

>

> Lee

>

> Re: Disclosure of Criminal

>History Information

>

>

>

>

>

> That was not required of me last time I recertified -

>when did that go

> into effect?

>

> Mike

>

> PS - The CCH that you can get on yourself is *not* as

>involved as what

> a law enforcement agency can generate, which is why

>there is such

> strict policy with law enforcement agencies/DPS (which

>manages the

> data in Texas) with regards to acquisition, use, and

>dissemenation of

> CCH data.

>

>

> > Another chapter to the book, it is my understanding

>that anytime you

> recertify with the state you are required to pay $15

>and get a CCH to

> send with your application. The funny thing is that

>you or I can get

> it via internet for only $3 from the same people (Tx

>DPS).

> >

> > Lee

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

A potential employer who is checking certification status on an

individual might look at the 'criminal check in progress' very

dubiously, even though they better be doing their own criminal

background check. In addition, the criminal background check holds up

the individuals certification, which may knock them out of the running

for a job. It seems this could be more internal. Possibly, the DSHS

legal eagles could explain this for us - I'm certain all of their bases

are covered.

Mike Hudson

>>> paramedicop@... 01/10/05 1:36 PM >>>

All -

I have a rather serious question. I am a paramedic and also hold a

peace officer license from Texas. I'm very, very aware of the

regulations surrounding disclosure of criminal history information.

So, with that in mind, I was browsing the Texas EMS Certification

Query page (http://www.tdh.state.tx.us/hcqs/ems, then click on

Certification Query). This is a public database of names, personnel

ID's (not SSN's) and current licensure/certification status for EMT,

EMT-I and paramedic personnel in Texas.

While running several names through the database, one of the persons I

checked status on came back with an entry indicating that their status

was on hold pending a review of criminal history information. It did

NOT specifically indicate that the person had a criminal history, or

any specific charge information, but it would seem to me that TDH/DSHS

may be revealing that someone has (or potentially has) a criminal

history simply by listing " criminal history review " as a part of an

person's status.

More specifically, their web site gives the following description for

that status entry:

Criminal History Review: Selected for evaluation of criminal history.

Deficencies of " Review of Criminal History " or " QI Review " may take 2

weeks or longer to clear. We will contact you by mail if additional

information is required.

So, the question to someone who knows: is this ethical? If a

candidate submits an application to DSHS in which they list some form

of criminal history, expecting that this information will remain

confidential, is DSHS in violation of any state laws with regards to

disclosure by listing this candidate as under " review of criminal

history " in their public database? Furthermore, if it's legal, is it

ethical? Should DSHS really be posting that people may/may not have a

criminal history in the public certquery database?

Obviously criminal histories need to be reviewed by DSHS and by

employers making hiring decisions. I'm not arguing that any heinous

criminal should be able to hide their history from everyone. I'm

asking whether or not DSHS being the " discloser " of the mere fact that

someone has a criminal history (which, in most cases, is public

information for anyone investing in the time to do the search)...

Your thoughts?

Mike

PS - It's not me. Feel free to certquery me - I'm Wayne ,

ID 50326.

[Guest guest]

A potential employer who is checking certification status on an

individual might look at the 'criminal check in progress' very

dubiously, even though they better be doing their own criminal

background check. In addition, the criminal background check holds up

the individuals certification, which may knock them out of the running

for a job. It seems this could be more internal. Possibly, the DSHS

legal eagles could explain this for us - I'm certain all of their bases

are covered.

Mike Hudson

>>> paramedicop@... 01/10/05 1:36 PM >>>

All -

I have a rather serious question. I am a paramedic and also hold a

peace officer license from Texas. I'm very, very aware of the

regulations surrounding disclosure of criminal history information.

So, with that in mind, I was browsing the Texas EMS Certification

Query page (http://www.tdh.state.tx.us/hcqs/ems, then click on

Certification Query). This is a public database of names, personnel

ID's (not SSN's) and current licensure/certification status for EMT,

EMT-I and paramedic personnel in Texas.

While running several names through the database, one of the persons I

checked status on came back with an entry indicating that their status

was on hold pending a review of criminal history information. It did

NOT specifically indicate that the person had a criminal history, or

any specific charge information, but it would seem to me that TDH/DSHS

may be revealing that someone has (or potentially has) a criminal

history simply by listing " criminal history review " as a part of an

person's status.

More specifically, their web site gives the following description for

that status entry:

Criminal History Review: Selected for evaluation of criminal history.

Deficencies of " Review of Criminal History " or " QI Review " may take 2

weeks or longer to clear. We will contact you by mail if additional

information is required.

So, the question to someone who knows: is this ethical? If a

candidate submits an application to DSHS in which they list some form

of criminal history, expecting that this information will remain

confidential, is DSHS in violation of any state laws with regards to

disclosure by listing this candidate as under " review of criminal

history " in their public database? Furthermore, if it's legal, is it

ethical? Should DSHS really be posting that people may/may not have a

criminal history in the public certquery database?

Obviously criminal histories need to be reviewed by DSHS and by

employers making hiring decisions. I'm not arguing that any heinous

criminal should be able to hide their history from everyone. I'm

asking whether or not DSHS being the " discloser " of the mere fact that

someone has a criminal history (which, in most cases, is public

information for anyone investing in the time to do the search)...

Your thoughts?

Mike

PS - It's not me. Feel free to certquery me - I'm Wayne ,

ID 50326.