Criminal records check massachusetts cori bill

If this bill is passed, we will be sure to notify you. In the meantime, we suggest placing a nationwide criminal background search to cover any other states your potential employee may have lived in. In addition, the state has been criticized for limiting its access to public records. There are 19 pages of exemption in its 60 page guide to Massachusetts public records.

Certain employers were allowed to automatically access the database. Others had to petition the Board to receive access or were not allowed access at all. The new law changes this corrupt method or scheme and creates a new system providing greater access for employers or background screening companies. The model policy currently on the DCJIS web-site includes the requirements set forth above, but is broader in scope. Employers should closely review their current policy or seek guidance in creating a policy that comports with the new CORI law, as well as the FCRA, and also accurately reflects their practices.

All iCORI registrations are valid for one calendar year. The proposed regulations state that a registration fee may be required, but does not specify an amount. The new law limits an employer's right to disseminate criminal history information both within the employer's organization and to outside entities.

Patrick urges passage of CORI reform bill

An employer can disseminate criminal information as directed by the subject, to individuals within the employer's organization who have a need to review the information to evaluate the applicant or employee, and to certain governmental agencies charged with overseeing, supervising, or regulating the employer. If an employer disseminates criminal history information outside of its organization, it must maintain a secondary dissemination log for one year following the dissemination which includes: i the subject's name, ii the subject's date of birth; iii the date of each dissemination; iv the name of the person to whom the information was disseminated; and v the purpose of the dissemination.

The proposed regulations specify that where criminal history information is shared with an organization, the dissemination log must include the name of the organization and the name of the individual to whom the information was disseminated.

Dissemination logs may be maintained either electronically or on paper. Employers that maintain and communicate criminal history information in the usual course of their business, such as staffing companies and recruiters, should pay particular attention to this new requirement.


It is unclear from the proposed regulations whether this provision applies only to CORI received from DCJIS or criminal history information obtained by an employer from any source. The proposed regulations require that all hard copies of CORI be stored in a separate, locked and secure location, such as a file cabinet. Employers must limit access to the locked and secure location to employees who have been approved by the employer to access CORI.

Accordingly, CORI information will need to be segregated from all other personnel record information and the employer will need to clearly designate who is permitted access to this information. In addition, the employer must limit password access to only those employees whom it has approved to access CORI.

The proposed regulations also prohibit employers from using "public cloud storage" methods to store CORI, although what constitutes "public cloud storage" is not defined. No entity may maintain a copy, in any format including electronic, of criminal offender record information obtained from DCJIS for more than seven years from the last date of employment or from the date the employer makes a final decision regarding the subject, whichever is longer.

Although the statutory language specifically limits this requirement to "criminal offender record information obtained from the department," the proposed regulations refer to an obligation not to retain "CORI" for more than the specified 7-year period. Accordingly, there is some ambiguity as to whether this requirement applies only to information obtained from DCJIS or to all criminal history information obtained from any source.

The proposed regulations also address the methods an employer must use to destroy CORI in its possession. With respect to electronic copies, employers must delete all copies from the hard drives on which the information is stored and from any system used to back up the CORI information. Additionally, an employer must appropriately clean all information by electronic or mechanical means before disposing of or repurposing a computer used to store CORI. The law establishes a criminal record review board CRRB within DJCIS that can hear complaints and investigate incidents alleging violations of the CORI law, including allegations that an employer failed to provide an individual copies of his criminal record prior to questioning the individual about the record or in deciding to take adverse action based on the record.

The CRRB's authority includes, but is not limited to, the ability to issue summonses to compel the attendance of witnesses, require employers to produce documents, and conduct hearings.

AIM Business Insider | CORI

The CRRB may also refer a complaint for criminal prosecution. Certain violations of the CORI law can carry criminal sanctions for an individual or an entity, including: i knowingly requesting, obtaining, or attempting to obtain criminal record information from DCJIS under false pretenses; ii knowingly communicating or attempting to communicate criminal record information to any other individual or entity not in accordance with the law; iii knowingly falsifying criminal record information; and iv requesting or requiring a person to provide a copy of his or her own criminal record except as authorized by the law.

Finally, individuals also have a private right of action available to them which provides for actual damages, plus attorney's fees and costs. This is similar to the damages available for violations of the FCRA, except that punitive damages are not specifically identified. The proposed regulations set forth the employer's obligations with respect to responding to an audit and the authority of DCJIS to conduct such audits. The proposed regulations require employers to respond to, and participate in, audits conducted by DCJIS.

Failure to cooperate or respond may result in immediate revocation of CORI access. If you are contacted about an audit, we urge you to seek legal counsel before responding. If DCJIS determines that an employer is not in compliance with statutory or regulatory CORI requirements, it may initiate a complaint with the CRRB or refer the audit results to state or federal law enforcement for criminal investigation.

MA CORI Regulations Amended

The law contains some protections for employers related to their use of and reliance on CORI records, provided that the employer made an employment decision within 90 days of obtaining the criminal record information and followed the procedures for verifying the subject's identity as required by the statute. First, employers will not be liable for negligent hiring where the employer relied solely on criminal record information obtained from DCJIS and did not perform additional criminal history background checks, unless otherwise required to do so by law.

The legislation passed by the House the past week, would change present law to allow sealing of felony crime records 10 years after sentencing for an offense, instead of the current 15 years. The House bill would also permit sealing of misdemeanor convictions from public view, such as Masschusetts assault and battery , or simple assault after five years, versus the current year waiting period. House Judiciary Chairman Eugene L.

  • boca raton property tax records!
  • free lookup for persons cell number.
  • certificate of live birth state of california;

The law was originally designed to make it much easier for employers and private citizens to obtain information about whether a given person had a criminal record. When the original CORI law was conceived, it was felt by many that too many persons convicted of crimes could too easily hide their criminal past, either following a criminal conviction of a crime with no jail time, or upon release from jail or prison.

Hence, the CORI law was passed to make it much easier for persons to learn if someone had a criminal record. For some time now, both sides in the debate have squared off, but the issue appears to be coming to a head in the legislature. As a columnist in the Boston Globe wrote recently, one problem complicating reform efforts, is that different people — especially employers — have different needs for this kind of information.

Some need very extensive, detailed information, such as, for example, public safety employers, financial institutions or child-care providers.

Search form

Law-and-order types want a bill that mandates that each person convicted of any crime at all, must carry a detailed record, accessible to as wide an audience as possible. Boston Criminal Attorney Blog.