C.F.R. » Title 28 » CHAPTER I—DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE › PART 20—CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS › Subpart C—Federal Systems and Exchange of Criminal History Record Information

28 C.F.R. § 20.34

Individual's right to access criminal history record information

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

The procedures by which an individual may obtain a copy of his or her identification record from the FBI to review and request any change, correction, or update are set forth in §§ 16.30-16.34 of this chapter. The procedures by which an individual may obtain a copy of his or her identification record from a state or local criminal justice agency are set forth in § 20.34 of the appendix to this part.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1980–2019 · leading case: Charles Edward Pruett v. Edward H. Levi, 622 F.2d 256 (6th Cir. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Charles Edward Pruett v. Edward H. Levi, 622 F.2d 256 (6th Cir. 1980). · cites it 2× “28 C.F.R. § 20.34 (a). Individuals are instructed to apply for corrections to the contributing state or local agency; however, requests sent to the FBI will be forwarded to the proper contributing agency.”
Tomas Reyes v. Supervisor of the Drug Enf't Admin., 834 F.2d 1093 (1st Cir. 1987). “See 28 C.F.R. §§ 20.34 , 20.21(g). This procedure would fully address Reyes’ main grievance without requiring separate actions against all the agencies.”
James v. Adams v. Washington State Dept Of Corr., 361 P.3d 749 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “28 C.F.R. § 20.34 addresses the procedure by which “an indi *947 vidual may obtain a copy of his III System record” and states that the individual’s “III System record .”
Michael Alexander v. United States, 787 F.2d 1349 (9th Cir. 1986). “30 to 34 and 28 C.F.R. 20.34, the vast majority of records in this system concern local arrests which it would be inappropriate for the FBI to undertake to correct.”
United States v. Cruz-García, 391 F. Supp. 3d 180 (2019). “" 28 C.F.R. § 20.34 ; see 28 C.F.R. §§ 16.32 and 16.”
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.