28 C.F.R. § 16.34
Procedure to obtain change, correction or updating of identification records
If, after reviewing his/her identification record, the subject thereof believes that it is incorrect or incomplete in any respect and wishes changes, corrections or updating of the alleged deficiency, he/she should make application directly to the agency which contributed the questioned information. The subject of a record may also direct his/her challenge as to the accuracy or completeness of any entry on his/her record to the FBI, Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division, ATTN: SCU, Mod. D-2, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, WV 26306. The FBI will then forward the challenge to the agency which submitted the data requesting that agency to verify or correct the challenged entry. Upon the receipt of an official communication directly from the agency which contributed the original information, the FBI CJIS Division will make any changes necessary in accordance with the information supplied by that agency.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1976–2024 · leading case: State v. Boniface, 369 So. 2d 115 (La. 1979).
State v. Boniface, 369 So. 2d 115 (La. 1979). “34 ( 28 CFR § 16.34 ) provides: "If, after reviewing his identification record, the subject thereof believes that it is incorrect or incomplete in any respect and wishes changes, correction or updating of the alleged deficiency, he must make application directly to the…”
Djenasevic v. Exec. United States Attorney's Off., 579 F. Supp. 2d 129 (D.D.C. 2008). “” 28 C.F.R. § 16.34 . Alternatively, the subject may: direct his[ ] challenge as to the accuracy or completeness of any entry on his[ ]record to the FBI, Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division, ATTN: SCU, Mod.”
Smith v. Bank of Am. Corp., 865 F. Supp. 2d 298 (E.D.N.Y 2012). “See Lopez Deck 13 (citing Procedure to Obtain Change, Correction or Updating of Identification Records, 28 C.F.R. § 16.34 (2011)). She did so, explaining that the charges against her had been dismissed after the ACD.”
Tarlton v. Saxbe, 407 F. Supp. 1083 (D.D.C. 1976). “Defendants emphasize that these actions relate to plaintiff alone and are based wholly upon the record in this action.”
Schaeuble v. Reno, 87 F. Supp. 2d 383 (D.N.J. 2000). “Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 16.34 , upon receipt of Plaintiffs request, the onus is clearly and unequivocally on the FBI to then “forward the challenge to the agency which submitted the data requesting that agency to verify or correct the challenged entry.”
Dempsey v. City of Baldwin City, Kan., 333 F. Supp. 2d 1055 (D. Kan. 2004). “Plaintiffs claim that McKenna ignored the restrictions on use of the FBI back *1069 ground check form, and that Dempsey was not provided the opportunity to challenge the reported information as is required by 28 C.F.R. § 16.34 . 10 Plaintiffs further contend that the report from…”
Hampton v. Comey (D.D.C. 2016). “18 He has available to him the record correction procedures set forth in 28 C.F.R. § 16.34 , and he does not contend in the second amended complaint or his opposition that he attempted to avail himself of these procedures.”
Robinson v. State of Alaska, DHSS, BCP, SDS (D. Alaska 2024). “government to submit fingerprints and exchange FBI identification records, including the criminal history records of the FBI for purposes of employment and licensing; and 28 C.F.R. § 16.34 provides the procedures to change, correct or update those records.”
(HC)Bowen v. Garland (E.D. Cal. 2022). “) The 12 rap sheet also contains a disclaimer that information contained in the record can be changed, corrected 13 or updated as set forth in 28 C.F.R. § 16.34 . (Doc. 1 at 16.) Respondent also states he has 14 investigated Petitioner’s claim to being born in the U.”
Reaves v. Washington (D.S.C. 2024). “Plaintiff Kathy Reaves a/k/a Kathy Juanita Reaves (“Reaves” or “Plaintiff’), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this Complaint alleging “violation of her rights secured under 42 USC 1983, 1988, Fair Credit Reporting Act, 28 CFR 16.34, Privacy Act of 1974, 49 CFR 801.”
Reaves v. Washington (D.S.C. 2024). “) Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this Complaint alleging “violation of her rights secured under 42 USC 1983, 1988, Fair Credit Reporting Act, 28 CFR 16.34, Privacy Act of 1974, 49 CFR 801.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.