Fingerprints and background checks

Forums: Legal
Email this Topic • Print this Page

My daughter is going on a spring trip to Europe with her school orchestra. During the summer they requested parent volunteers to go on the trip as chaperones. My husband signed up, has paid approx $700 towards his expenses of which about $500 are not refundable. He has been excited about the trip.

Yesterday, we received a letter in the mail from the school stating that the school board has recently passed a new policy requiring all chaperones travelling with students on overnight school trips to submit fingerprints. There is a mandatory meeting next Tuesday where representatives of the high school staff will be on hand to administer the fingerprinting process.

That's it! Nothing on how they intend on using the fingerprints, the reason for the policy, nada. My husband spoke to the orchestra director, who was the originator of the letter, but didn't get much information. I tried to contact the superintendent of schools but there is no one in the office today who can deal with this. I asked for a copy of the policy to be faxed to me, as it does not appear to be on the web site with the rest of the policies, and was told there is no one in the office today who can deal with this.

I looked at the agendas and the minutes for the board meetings for the past 6 months. There is no mention of this policy. The January agenda is posted (no mention) but the January minutes are not yet available as they have not yet been approved.

My husband is a bit, er..., miffed would be polite. It isn't a matter of having anything to hide but this has come out of nowhere with no option to refuse and no offer to reimburse funds for those who chose not to submit fingerprints.

I thought perhaps the fabulous legal minds at A2K might have some thoughts.

Thanks!

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,971 • Replies: 38

No top replies

having no legal background whatsoever, i'll take a layman's stab at it.

it sounds like a safety precaution aimed at protecting kids from abductions and other abuses.

do you and your husband feel that's its an invasion of your privacy?

0 Replies

I'm sure that the reason is to make sure that convicted sexual felons aren't spending nights with teenagers as a school chaperone.

I would demand that they give you the policy before submitting to fingerprinting. When and how will they be handled? Will they be kept on file at the school or at any agency they use to check criminal records? How many points of comparison are they using and is there a way to retest using more points in case of a match? What about other privacy concerns? Who will have access to the criminal records? Is this just a simple yes/no response or is the full criminal record provided to the school? What type of crimes are the cut off point. A DUI arrest will get you fingerprinted but does it mean you are a risk to children?

Will you have to submit for fingerprinting every time you volunteer to chaperone? Or is there a process to test once and keep you on file?

0 Replies

Oof, this is a can o' worms.

First off, the school is demented to have created (or announced) such a policy after people had paid for their trips. To me, that smacks of wanting to corner people and force them into compliance. Add to that the fact that the policy isn't published anywhere (I take it you would not have known about it but for the letter from the orchestra director) and it smells like the school wanting people to commit financially and then spring this on them.

I'd demand to see the entire policy, in writing. I'd demand to know exactly when the policy was passed, where were the public hearings on it, and how exactly was the school intending to communicate about the policy to the chaperones, except via this off-the-cuff letter? This does not necessarily mean I would not comply, but it would leave an exceptionally bitter taste in my mouth about any future trips or calls to chaperone. Personally (and I'm not a parent and it's not my money), I'd sell the ticket on eBay or find some other way to recoup my losses and not go or, if that was impossible, I'd bill the school for my losses and still not go.

But I'm mean and, like I said, it's not my money plus I don't have a child's best interests to worry about.

Fingerprinting is still seen as an intrinsic part of booking a suspect, enough so that, "The gathering of fingerprint evidence from 'free persons' constitutes a sufficiently significant interference with individual expectations of privacy that law enforcement officials are required to demonstrate that they have probable cause, or at least an articulable suspicion, to believe that the person committed a criminal offense and that the fingerprinting will establish or negate the person's connection to the offense. See Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811, 813-18 ('85); Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, 726-28 ('69)." See: http://www.lectlaw.com/def/f081.htm

While I realize that this is not the police who are going to be gathering the fingerprints, what is the purpose behind the gathering? Would the prints be turned over to the police? And when would this turning over happen? Before or after a crime was committed or alleged to have been committed? Before the trip so as to prevent sex offenders, etc. from going? For the police, the prints are probably bad potential evidence, what's called the fruits of the poisonous tree, see: Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.E.2d. 441 (1963), and are potentially more damaging than helpful -- surely this is not the school's intention, to possibly hobble any future police investigations?

So the school is probably not doing the police any favors by gathering prints.

Hence this is my bottom line question to the school: what is the purpose of gathering the prints, and what will happen to the prints once gathered?
- will they be given to the cops before the trip? If so, possible fruit of the poisonous tree situation. Also, this violates the reasonable privacy expectations of the parents.
- will they be given to the cops during or after the trip if there's a problem? Same as above.
- will they just go into a musty file cabinet somewhere in the bowels of the school? If so, why gather them? To just scare people? Nuh-uh, sorry, that's not a good enough reason for violating Constitutional rights.

I'm with your husband. This is definitely something to be more than slightly indignant about. He is and should be outraged.

0 Replies

Odd, to say the least.
I've done youth work for various organizations and been required to fill
out CORI forms, but I've never been asked to give fingerprints.

0 Replies

When I went through the process of becoming certified as a teacher, fingerprinting was part of that process. I think it's pretty standard for teachers.

I think Jes might be right about the timing, I think it also may just have been disorganization -- you'd be surprised how many people submit to this kind of thing with nary a whimper.

0 Replies

My guess is that this brainstorm is not authentic official policy.

Obviously the School System's Lawyer was not involved.

0 Replies

I was fingerprinted when I took the LSAT (although not when I took the Bar), and it was strictly for identification purposes, because there's been plenty of cheating on the LSAT so that people can get into better Law Schools. But for the Bar, I suppose, since there is a different kind of a background check (e. g. they check your SSN and ask around in the community, you need to have someone vouch for you, to show that you're not a convicted felon), no fingerprinting was necessary.

For teachers, I can see it as (a) identification, so that you, who are licensed and educated, are who you say you are and (b) because, particularly when it comes to early childhood education, it's a profession that could attract sex offenders. But that's not the case here; this is a school outing and, given the destination, highly unlikely to be about very young children.

Hence the question: what's the purpose? And doesn't the school have far less intrusive means of fulfilling said purpose? I bet Noddy's right, that it's not official anywhere, and certainly wasn't vetted by someone who knew anything about the legal ramifications of it.

0 Replies

VOLUNTEER CODE OF CONDUCT, BACKGROUND CHECKS AND FINGERPRINTING-OVERNIGHT TRIPS

The following forms must be read and signed by any volunteer for any school and/or parish related trip or event:

9. Volunteers Code of Conduct
10. Submit to Illinois Department of Children and Family Services an Authorization for Background Check Illinois Department of Children and and Family Services an Authorization for Background Check

Illinois Department of Children and Family Services Authorization for Background Check:

The Authorization for Background Check is often referred to as CANTS (Child Abuse and Neglect Tracking System). This Authorization is to be filled out and signed by any possible volunteer. This Authorization is used to determine whether an individual has been a perpetrator of an indicated incident of child abuse and/or neglect or involved in a pending investigation. . . .

11. Submit to the Illinois State Police a Conviction Information Request (fingerprint check) A criminal history check via fingerprints of persons age 18 and over are submitted to the Illinois State Police for comparison to their criminal history records. . . .
http://www.cdop.org/files/cdop_documents/Guidelines_School_Parish_Trip.pdf

0 Replies

I spoke to the asst Superintendent yesterday who told me that IL has passed a statute requiring all teachers and paid staff to submit fingerprints and our school board decided to apply the same standard to volunteer chaperones. The words 'overly intrusive and potentially damaging' come to mind.

I asked her when this policy was made and why the chaperones were not informed of the requirement as a condition of participation. She did not know the answer and said she would get back to me. I told her I couldn't find any reference to it in the minutes or agendas going back to last May when the request for chaperones was made. Something didn't happen right here.

From the bottom up..

Debra - I saw that too, but my thoughts are that just because the school districts can pass policy (the Catholic Diocese of Peoria in the case of your link) doesn't mean that policy is just or not overly intrusive. I understand the goal is to protect the children but the fact that these are not paid staff, that we are talking about parent volunteers who are paying their own way to accompany their children to Europe should not result in leaving a trail that could be potentially damaging. The case of the unfortunate man in Seattle who had a five point match with a fingerprint of a suspected terrorist in the Madrid train bombings comes to mind. He was detained as a potential terrorist from the result of 'expert FBI fingerprint matching' and was never in the area of the event. The idea that having one's fingerprints on file might lead an individual to becoming a potential suspect in a crime committed anywhere in the world based on a five point fingerprint match is 'overly intrusive and potentially damaging' when a parent is trying to help out the school by being a chaperone.

Jes - less intrusive indeed! From your lips to my next letter to the school board.

Noddy - It seemed from my first conversation with the asst Sup that you are correct.

Soz - yep, I was ranting on the phone to a friend last night who said, 'hmmm, I never would have given it a second thought.'

George - my point exactly. We do background checks on all adult volunteers who attend overnight functions with our youth at church or off site. We request a driver's license and SS # and tell them up front of the requirements. Never have we requested fingerprints from parents who are chaperoning our children.

Jes - Thank you for seeing the outrage of this situation. We plan on getting a list of the other chaperones and getting their opinions, which will probably be mixed. Who knows we might be the only ones in town with a libertarian bent. It's a combination of the policy itself and the manner in which it was implemented for this trip that is driving us bonkers.

parados - I plan on using your feedback in my letter as well. The asst superintendent seemed surprised that there would be any concern with this policy. If nothing else, we hope to give them something to think about before Tuesday.

rp - yep, we definitely feel its a privacy issue.

In general, we feel eight weeks before a trip which has been in the planning stages for eight months is not the time to pull the rug out from under the chaperones. I'm curious to hear back on exactly when the policy was passed and, if it was more than six months ago, why we didn't hear anything about it until this, "oh, by the way" type of notice. My husband is left with the dilemma of potentially deciding between what he feels is an invasion of privacy and going along with the intrusion in order to keep his commitment to our daughter. It isn't a very fun position to be in.

Thanks all for your input. I'll keep you posted.

0 Replies

Debra, thanks for finding that. Man, it's amazing the school said zip to you about that, J_B. Good luck, I hope that one thing that comes out of this is your daughter getting a taste of what fighting for the right to privacy (and the old innocent until proven guilty deal) is about.

0 Replies

I am actually wondering if someone TOLD the school very recently about the policy, and they have panicked because they hadn't considered that aspect....for what it is worth it has the ring of that sort of thing about it, rather than a deep plot or plan.

I hear the sound of bums being covered.

I guess I understand everyone's concerns, and I would very much want to know what would be done with the info etc.....but I also see the kids abused by chaperones and volunteers and such, so I fully understand the other side.

Personally, I would be angry re the delay, and make this very clear, but proffer me fingers and would have expected the police check, and been surprised it had not yet been forthcoming.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Personally, I would be angry re the delay, and make this very clear, but proffer me fingers and would have expected the police check, and been surprised it had not yet been forthcoming.

If it weren't for the problems with the 'experts' at the FBI, the actions being taken against American citizens under the Patriot Act and the attempt of the school board to pick an apple by means of throwing a grenade at the tree I would agree with you.

Numerous civil and religious oranizations require criminal background checks on their chaperones. These are gathered via vital statistic infomation including name, date of birth, social security number (unique identifier to all Americans), and driver's license information. None of these checks result in the creation of a file at the FBI which then might be used in further large-scale searches.

Here is a portion of a letter we submitted to the school and superintendent.

Quote:

Many people, perhaps a majority, are of the opinion that fingerprinting is an infallible forensic science comparable with DNA matching. This is far from the truth as demonstrated in the links below. Many people, and perhaps most, feel they don't need additional information when asked to provide personal information by an organization they trust and that there is no risk to complying with such a request, but this is patently false. There is also the sentiment that only those with something to hide would be concerned about having their information on file with the FBI. Being put in the position of complying with a request to prove one's innocence and being forced into a position of presumed guilt by withholding participation , even if based on philosophical/ethical grounds has put this family in a very difficult position. We made a commitment to our daughter to assist with the upcoming trip and have spent many months planning and looking forward to it. But this issue, at this late date, forces us into a nightmare decision. We can either live up the the commitment to K, and to her classmates in the orchestra. Or we can demonstrate an actual commitment to principles by which we've raised her up to this point using mere words--principles of personal liberty and the presumption of innocence that distinguishes her country from most others.

While we support the premise of performing background checks on non-staff adults traveling with students, we feel the use of fingerprinting to achieve the desired results is overly intrusive and potentially damaging to the adults participating on this trip. Fingerprinting is not an exact science, and it is not even known how inexact it is! As a subjective measure of identification there have been cases, some severe, where innocent people have been implicated in crimes they did not commit. A perfect example of such a situation is the case of Brandon Mayfield, the Oregon attorney arrested and detained for two weeks as a prime suspect in the Madrid subway bombings. Mr. Mayfield was identified by the FBI as 100% positive identification to the fingerprint found on a bag of dentonators on one of the trains. Mr Mayfield had no criminal record and was 100% mis-matched on fingerprints kept on file by the FBI by "the top experts at the FBI" (see links for this case and general discussion on fingerprint errors.) http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/01/06/mayfield.report/index.html also http://www.truthinjustice.org/fingerprint-error.htm and http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64711-2004May28.html

Background checks can be performed without the use of fingerprints. We are involved in religious and civic groups that require background checks by way of social security numbers and/or driver's license information. These methods are an excellent first-pass screen of the student's family members and do not result in the creation of a fingerprint record at the FBI which might then be used to falsely impugn any of our citizens. A recent review of the IL statutes found no examples where the statute requires the fingerprint screening of volunteer participants. The Emergency Shelter Workers Criminal Background Check Act (House bill 2240 - still in committee) would require:

"an employee, volunteer, prospective employee, or prospective volunteer of the overnight emergency shelter or transitional shelter and a youth emergency shelter shall require a volunteer or prospective volunteer of the youth emergency shelter to submit to a criminal background check conducted by the Department of State Police and the Federal Bureau of Investigation as part of the requirement for employment or volunteer work at the shelter. If the employee, volunteer, prospective employee, or prospective volunteer's criminal background check indicates a criminal conviction, the employee, volunteer, prospective employee, or prospective volunteer must further submit to a fingerprint-based criminal background check. The employee's volunteer's, prospective employee's, or prospective volunteer's name, sex, race, date of birth, and social security number shall be forwarded to the Department of State Police to be searched against the Illinois criminal history records database in the form and manner prescribed by the Department of State Police."

We believe the two-step procedures outlined in the proposed HB2240 whereby the FBI fingerprint review is only conducted after failing a check at the State Police would certainly meet the needs of the school community and would not untowardly risk the safety of the chaperones. Our church group routinely submits the vital statistic information described in HB2240 to the State Police on any adult accompanying our youth during on-site or off-site overnight events. We do not require fingerprints.

The letter (four pages!) was sent this morning. The meeting is Wednesday, I might have said Tuesday in my opening post. Hopefully we've given them something to think about and will get a response before the meeting.

0 Replies

Can't he still go, as a parental-chaperone of his child only?

I realise he is supposed to be chaperoning a group of kids, but if he has already paid for his ticket himself and it is non-refundable, then what is to stop him going anyway, just not as an official school-chaperone? As a parent he cannot be prevented from traveling or accompanying his child if he so wishes.

0 Replies

It's a private tour booked solely for this group. He could go as a family member of another chaperone, but that means I would have to sign up as a chaperone which puts us back at the beginning.

Oh, and that's another pickle in the soup! The accompanying family members are appearenly NOT being fingerprinted even though they are non-staff adults on a school sponsored trip. Now, why would those adults be any less risk to the safety of our children?

0 Replies

how ironic...

0 Replies

I'm totally amzed that some private instituion takes fingerprints.

Even if the police does so here, they must have a leagel reason (suspected of a crime or misdemeanour).

It's done with asylum seekers as well for "identificational reasons".

0 Replies

Good letter. Go get 'em.

0 Replies

I didn't see dlowan's post, I very much agree about butt-covering.

Also, the reason I brought up that it's standard for teachers is that the people who are implementing the policy may think it's no big deal.

Thanks for the update, will be curious to see how this progresses. Very nice letter.

0 Replies

Oy.

Let us know how they reply, eh?

0 Replies

Fingerprints and background checks

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know