Pa state police criminal history report

Pennsylvania School Law requires that all applicants for employment in public and private schools, employees of independent contractors seeking business with public and private schools, and student teacher candidates undergo background checks if they will have direct contact with students.

Drexel University School of Education

The following three background checks are required:. By selecting the link below, you will be directed to the Child Welfare Portal where you must create an account or log in with your existing credentials. Your results will be given to you immediately through electronic transmission or by mail if your results cannot be processed at that time. The Pennsylvania Criminal History Clearance application can be submitted online. By selecting the link below, you will be directed to the Pennsylvania State Police Criminal History Portal, where you must create an account or log in with your existing credentials.

Payment to obtain the Criminal History Clearance is made via credit card. Your results will be given to you immediately through electronic transmission. The Federal Criminal History Record Clearance application can be submitted online, however, you will need to go to an approved Identogo location in Pennsylvania to have your fingerprints processed.

By selecting the link below, you will be directed to the IdentogoWebsite, where you must first enter a service code.

Once on the site, you will create an account or log in with your existing credentials. PSP also noted that it requested further information on Haron's firearms conviction from the local common pleas court but that court stated it had no information regarding the same. PSP did admit in its answer that it mistakenly sent the April 3, denial letter to Haron, but stated that it corrected his record as of April 28, , and sent a letter dated May 27, , advising of this correction.

Pennsylvania Becomes First State To Automatically Seal Certain Criminal Records

Further, PSP denied that Haron was deprived of a fundamental right or that its actions were willful or intentional. In new matter, PSP averred that the matter was moot because the relief Haron requested has been provided. PSP indicated that the oral notice to Haron's counsel was provided within this sixty-day window, but the written correspondence was not provided within this timeframe.

In an answer to this new matter, Haron responded that the matter was not moot, noting the trial court's previous ruling on this issue. Haron also noted that his requests for monetary damages, reasonable attorney fees, and costs remain outstanding. Haron stated that, despite PSP's April 28, voicemail, PSP refused to provide written confirmation of the correction of his records. Haron specifically denied receipt of PSP's May 27, letter. Finally, Haron responded that he suffered damages for the time period from March 18, , through October 22, , the date of the ALJ's hearing.

In this petition, Haron notes that PSP admits to violating sections requiring a criminal justice agency to maintain complete and accurate criminal history record information and requiring a criminal justice agency to correct its record within fifteen days of the detection of inaccurate data in a criminal history record, regardless of the manner of discovery of CHRIA, 18 Pa. Haron reiterates his allegation that PSP's violations were willful and deliberate.

Haron alleges that its right to relief is clear, that there are no material issues of fact in dispute, and that the only issue that remains to be determined is the amount of damages to which he is entitled under section of CHRIA. At the same time, Haron submitted an affidavit as to the facts detailed above. PSP filed an answer to this petition denying that Haron's right to relief is clear. PSP averred that Haron was not aggrieved or entitled to damages as a result of its maintenance of an incorrect criminal history record because, after his attempted purchase of a firearm was denied, Haron initiated a statutorily mandated administrative appeal process pursuant to section PSP also averred that Haron submitted no direct evidence that it acted in a willful manner justifying the imposition of punitive damages.

To the contrary, PSP noted that the evidence of record indicates, at best, that it maintained an incorrect criminal history record, that the incorrect record caused Haron to initially be denied a purchase of a firearm, and that, after review of documentation submitted by Haron, it corrected its record and cleared Haron for a firearms purchase within the sixty days required by section PSP is correct that Haron originally brought his challenge under section Within 20 days after receiving a challenge, the Pennsylvania State Police shall notify the challenger of the basis for the denial, including, but not limited to, the jurisdiction and docket number of any relevant court decision and provide the challenger an opportunity to provide additional information for the purposes of the review.

How to Obtain Your Criminal Record in Pennsylvania

The Pennsylvania State Police shall communicate its final decision to the challenger within 60 days of the receipt of the challenge. The decision of the Pennsylvania State Police shall include all information which formed a basis for the decision. The Attorney General shall conduct a hearing de novo in accordance with the Administrative Agency Law. The burden of proof shall be upon the Commonwealth. Following confirmation of the denial by PSP by letter dated March 12, , which was well within 20 days of receipt of the challenge, Haron responded in a letter dated March 18, , that PSP's information was incorrect.

Hence, PSP could not verify the information contained in the documentation submitted by Haron and by letter dated April 3, , which was well within the required 60—day timeline for response to his original challenge, PSP advised Haron that its decision denying his challenge was upheld. While we agree with Haron that the decision required under Haron's second letter in his challenge to the PSP denial was dated March 18, , and contained additional information which had not been previously attached and which PSP could not retrieve from the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County.

While PSP acknowledged to Haron via voicemail on April 28, , that its records were incorrect and that the same had been corrected, it was not incumbent upon PSP to issue yet another written decision at this point since Haron had already commenced an appeal with the OAG. Nevertheless, PSP alleges that it did subsequently send Haron a letter dated May 27, , confirming the information above.

Based upon these facts, we cannot conclude that PSP willfully failed to comply with section To the contrary, PSP complied with the requirements of section In any event, the fact remains that Haron was advised of PSP's final decision correcting the records well before the July 24, filing of his complaint with the trial court and the ALJ's October 22, hearing, thereby obviating any harm that Haron allegedly suffered during that time period.

Section of CHRIA addresses the correction of inaccurate information maintained by criminal justice agencies, providing as follows:. Within 15 days of the detection of inaccurate data in a criminal history record, regardless of the manner of discovery, the criminal justice agency which reported the information shall comply with the following procedures to effect correction:. Failure to challenge any portion of the record in existence at that time will place the burden of proving the inaccuracy of any part subsequently challenged upon the individual.

Information subsequently added to such record shall also be subject to review, challenge, correction or appeal.

Act 34 – PA Criminal Background

The decision on the challenge shall include all information, including, but not limited to, the jurisdiction and docket number of any relevant court decision which formed a basis for the decision. If the challenge is deemed valid, the appropriate officials must ensure that:. The burden of proof shall be upon the party bearing the burden of proof on the challenge. Finally, section of CHRIA sets forth the available remedies for violations of its provisions, including the following:.

PSP relies on this Court's previous decision in Poliskiewicz v.

Background Information

East Stroudsburg University, Pa. In Poliskiewicz, the appellant was employed as a police officer for a local borough as well as a state university. Following an incident at a bar, the appellant was arrested for disorderly conduct and public drunkenness. The appellant was suspended from both jobs pending the outcome of criminal proceedings. All criminal charges were subsequently dropped and the appellant returned to his position with the borough.


  1. how to check domain ip.
  2. marriage license search houston texas!
  3. chester county detention center inmate information.
  4. find peoples e-mail address free!
  5. Stay Connected.
  6. Employment / Background Clearance Information.
  7. Pennsylvania Bulletin and Code!

The state university, however, did not reemploy him. The appellant filed a complaint against the state university seeking monetary damages and alleging that the refusal to reemploy him was violative of sections and of CHRIA relating to the consideration by an employer, including a state agency, of an applicant's criminal history record information file with regard to hiring and determining eligibility for licensing, certification, registration, or permission to engage in a trade, profession, or occupation.

The common pleas court sustained the state university's preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer based upon sovereign immunity.

This Court affirmed the common pleas court decision, noting that state universities are part of the Commonwealth for purposes of sovereign immunity, that the appellant's claim did not fall within one of the enumerated exceptions to such immunity, and that CHRIA does not contain a specific provision waiving immunity as to the Commonwealth. However, as Haron notes in a reply brief, the record-keeping provisions of CHRIA apply almost exclusively to governmental units, with the exception of one provision that relates to the use of criminal records by employers.

In Hunt v. Pennsylvania State Police, Pa. As is plain from a reading of the statute, by its terms, CHRIA provides for the possibility of actual and real damages, and reasonable costs of litigation and counsel fees, where a person was found to have been aggrieved by a violation of CHRIA. The statute also contains a provision for the award of exemplary and punitive damages when the violation is found to be willful.

In this case, PSP did originally maintain incorrect criminal history record information with respect to Haron in violation of section of CHRIA, which wrongfully resulted in the denial of his constitutional right to purchase a firearm for a period of several months and required him to ultimately obtain counsel. This Court never had the opportunity to rule on remand in Hunt, as the matter was discontinued. Additionally, Haron is entitled to reasonable costs of litigation and attorney fees.

Counsel for Haron further submitted documentation and affidavits from attorneys who worked on his case, including detailed invoices, reflecting a combined There was no legal work reflected on the attorney invoices until June 12, , at which time counsel began drafting the complaint that was ultimately filed with the trial court. In other words, nearly two months after Haron's counsel was advised that the criminal history record information was corrected, legal work commenced on the matter in the trial court, i.