While conducting a recent background investigation, governed by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), our team found conflicting information on database records and the court index compared to the actual court documents. The national criminal database matched a criminal record to the subject of the investigation by name and address, but the date of birth had a one-year discrepancy. As a standard practice, our team always confirms database records with a primary source to ensure accuracy.
When we checked the court index for this record, the date of birth was still off by a year. Reviewing case documents for the record uncovered a court document in the case file that listed a date of birth matching that of the candidate. We contacted the court regarding this inconsistency, and a clerk confirmed that the date of birth for this case matched the candidate’s, attributing the erroneous date of birth on the court index to an administrative error.
This critical inconsistency in personally identifiable information could have led our team not to report a serious offense, which may have affected the client’s hiring decision. Only by reviewing primary source documents could we uncover the true information, confirm it with the court, and provide our client with an accurate and legally compliant report.
This case highlighted and reaffirmed what we already knew: primary source information remains the gold standard for accuracy and dependability in investigations.
Why Primary Sources Matter
In FCRA-governed background investigations, only primary source information is considered actual evidence, an important distinction between speculation and fact.
Primary source documents carry a weight of authenticity that databases simply do not. These documents reflect the official record of proceedings and are far less prone to transcription errors or data entry issues, which can plague automated systems.
For any investigator operating under the FCRA, the importance of accuracy goes beyond best practice to legal obligation. Using outdated or incorrect records from a database, even unintentionally, can result in the reporting of false information, which opens the door to consumer disputes, legal liability, and reputational harm for both the investigator and the client. By verifying findings through primary sources, investigators reduce the risk of reporting incorrect or misleading information.
Limitations of Online Searches and Databases
In today’s digital age, it’s tempting to believe that a one-click background check or an online media search can uncover everything you need to know about a person or company. Subscription databases, search engines, and online court portals promise instant results. However, the reality is more complicated, especially for FCRA-governed background investigations.
Many investigators begin their search with online databases, and for good reason. These tools can offer fast, broad overviews and may even uncover helpful leads. However, databases may not be current, complete, or accurate. These tools depend on third-party uploads from courts and agencies, many of which experience delays or only provide partial information. In addition, some documents, or even whole cases, may have been sealed, expunged, or amended in a court proceeding, and online databases may not include these changes, which could lead to the inclusion of a record or information that is no longer reportable.
Primary Sources in Litigation Support
Similar to their importance in FCRA investigations, primary source documents are equally critical in litigation support, where the accuracy and completeness of information can directly influence legal strategy and case outcomes. Online records often provide limited fields of data, omitting critical context and supporting details. For example, official documents may contain signatures, handwritten notes, crossed-out text, or attachments that never make it into digital databases.
In corporate litigation, corporate source records might reveal officer names, original formation documents, or amendments that clarify ownership or control. This information can be pivotal to litigation, but it could be missed if relying solely on online sources. Only by accessing the actual court filings or official corporate records can an investigator ensure that nothing vital is overlooked.
Proper Research: Time-Consuming but Invaluable
Often, hiring managers face intense pressure to make quick decisions on adding new staff to help their business and/or their clients’ businesses succeed. While we always strive to provide clients with complete information as quickly as possible, proper research can take time to ensure accuracy.
Whether contacting court offices, combing through court documents, or evaluating a record for reportability under the FCRA, thorough research can be time-consuming. Databases and online search engines might promise quick answers, but accuracy issues can cause more headaches than benefits for hiring managers.
Electronic tools can offer a helpful starting point, but they should not be treated as fact. Obtaining primary source information forms the foundation of any credible, compliant investigation. Thorough research requires going directly to the source, verifying every critical detail, and ensuring the information reported is both accurate and actionable. This extra step helps protect employers from potential legal exposure and supports informed decision-making.
In a world that increasingly values speed and automation, thoroughness and accuracy still have no substitute.
