28 C.F.R. § 20.32

Includable offenses

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Criminal history record information maintained in the III System and the FIRS shall include serious and/or significant adult and juvenile offenses.

(b) The FIRS excludes arrests and court actions concerning nonserious offenses, e.g., drunkenness, vagrancy, disturbing the peace, curfew violation, loitering, false fire alarm, non-specific charges of suspicion or investigation, and traffic violations (except data will be included on arrests for vehicular manslaughter, driving under the influence of drugs or liquor, and hit and run), when unaccompanied by a § 20.32(a) offense. These exclusions may not be applicable to criminal history records maintained in state criminal history record repositories, including those states participating in the NFF.

(c) The exclusions enumerated above shall not apply to federal manual criminal history record information collected, maintained, and compiled by the FBI prior to the effective date of this subpart.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1976–2019 · leading case: Charles Edward Pruett v. Edward H. Levi, Attorney Gen. of the United States, 622 F.2d 256 (6th Cir. 1980).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Charles Edward Pruett v. Edward H. Levi, Attorney Gen. of the United States, 622 F.2d 256 (6th Cir. 1980). · cites it 4× “On appeal Pruett argues that his complaint was erroneously dismissed because the FBI has an affirmative duty to delete from its files notations on nonserious crimes, 28 C.F.R. § 20.32 (b), and notations which lack dispositions.”

Courtney v. Oklahoma Ex Rel. Dep't of Pub. Saf., 722 F.3d 1216 (10th Cir. 2013). “28 C.F.R. § 20.32 (a) (emphasis added). Further, the district court’s analysis ignores the information available to Smith on the Triple-I report, which plainly indicates the prior breaking and entering charge was a juvenile adjudication.”

John Doe v. William H. Webster, Dir., Fbi, 606 F.2d 1226 (D.C. Cir. 1979). “District of Columbia, supra (District of Columbia’s so-called Duncan Regulations do not permit the furnishing of arrest records not resulting in convictions to private employers).”

Tarlton v. Saxbe, 407 F. Supp. 1083 (D.D.C. 1976). · cites it 2× “32 (b) (1975) expresses this present FBI policy: “Excluded from such a system [of criminal records maintained] are arrests and court actions limited only to nonserious charges, e. g., drunkenness, vagrancy, disturbing the peace, curfew violation, loitering, false fire alarm,…”

State v. Timothy Grant, 2019 VT 91 (Vt. 2019). “” 28 C.F.R. § 20.32 (a) (emphasis added). Nothing in the Compact requires the state to do away with its statutory standards for when a person may be fingerprinted.”

United States v. Millan Ferrer, 129 F. Supp. 2d 112 (D.P.R. 2001). “Defendants cite 28 C.F.R. § 20.32 (1979) for the proposition that the Government lacks authority, in cases of misdemeanors such as the present ones, to order or request the taking of photographs or videotapes of persons charged with misdemeanors.”

United States v. Villalba, 129 F. Supp. 2d 109 (D.P.R. 2000). “Defendants cite 28 C.F.R. § 20.32 (1979) for the proposition that the Government lacks authority, in cases of misdemeanors such as the present ones, to order or request the taking of photographs or videotapes of persons charged with misdemeanors.”

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.