Background screening is the process by which an investigator or a background screening firm looks up all available official and commercial records about an individual. Background screening is often initiated when an individual applies for a job that is high security or highly specialised job such as with a bank, intelligence agency etc. In earlier days, the police carried out these background screenings. But now, more and more private investigators are employed to find out the backgrounds of people.
During background screening, the past employment record, credit history, and criminal history are checked for. Besides this, these checks allow the organisation to make a more informed and less-subjective evaluation about the individual and his character. Some other areas where background checks are used include identity theft , and violation of privacy.
Pre- Employment Background Screening
Most organisations do a pre-employment screening. This is done in order to verify the accuracy of the information provided by the applicant as well as to find out if the candidate has any criminal record etc. Companies hire services of investigating agencies or background screening agencies for a fee. Many commercial websites offer specific searches for employers based on their requirements. While their services include background screenings, supplying the company with adverse action letters and ensuring compliance throughout the process it’s important to make the right decision in choosing the best pre-employment agency.
Some other employers may choose to simply search the most commonly available records such as education verification, driving records, and criminal records. Off late, background checks for sex offender registry, credential verification, credit history, reference checks, and ‘Patriot Act’ are fast becoming popular with an increase in both awareness and lawlessness.
It is important that the employer consider the position for candidature while determining the type of search to opt for. Also, the employer should always use the same background screening options for all applicants being considered for the said position.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Friday, May 11, 2007
Who is a Detective?
Detective is an investigator, either a member of a police agency or a private person. Private detectives usually operate commercially and are licensed. They may be known as private investigators (P.I.s or "private eyes"). Informally, and primarily in fiction, a detective is any unlicensed person who solves crimes, including historical crimes, or looks into records.
Becoming a Detective
In most American police departments, a candidate for detective must have served as a uniformed officer for a period of one to five years before becoming qualified for the position. Prospective British police detectives must have completed at least two years as a uniformed officer before applying to join the Criminal Investigation Department. In European police systems, most detectives are university graduates who join directly from civilian life without first serving as uniformed officers. In fact, many European police experts cannot understand why British, Irish, American and Commonwealth police forces insist on recruiting their detectives from the ranks of uniformed officers, arguing that they do a completely different job and therefore require completely different training, qualifications, qualities and abilities. The opposing argument is that without previous service as a uniformed patrol officer a detective cannot have a great enough command of standard police procedures and problems and will find it difficult to work with uniformed colleagues.
In addition, in some US police departments, policies exist that limit the term that an officer may serve continuously as a detective, and mandate that detectives must regularly return to patrol duties for a minimum period of time. This is based upon a perception that the most important and essential police work is accomplished on patrol, and that the skills, experience and familiarity with their beats that patrol officers maintain are essential for detectives to maintain as well. Investigations, by contrast, often take weeks or months to complete, during which time detectives may spend much of their time away from the streets. In this thinking, rotating officers also promotes cross-training in a wider variety of skills, producing both better detectives and uniformed officers. Such policies also serve to prevent "cliques" within detective bureaus that can contribute to corruption or other unethical behavior.
Detectives obtain their position by competitive examination, covering such subjects as:
Principles, practices and procedures of investigations
Principles, practices and procedures of interviewing and interrogation
Local criminal law and procedures
Applicable law governing arrests, search and seizures, warrants and evidence
Police department records and reports
Principles, practices and objectives of courtroom testimony
Police department methods and procedures
Private detectives are licensed by the state in which they live after passing a competitive examination and a criminal background check. Some states, such as Maryland, require a period of classroom training as well.
Becoming a Detective
In most American police departments, a candidate for detective must have served as a uniformed officer for a period of one to five years before becoming qualified for the position. Prospective British police detectives must have completed at least two years as a uniformed officer before applying to join the Criminal Investigation Department. In European police systems, most detectives are university graduates who join directly from civilian life without first serving as uniformed officers. In fact, many European police experts cannot understand why British, Irish, American and Commonwealth police forces insist on recruiting their detectives from the ranks of uniformed officers, arguing that they do a completely different job and therefore require completely different training, qualifications, qualities and abilities. The opposing argument is that without previous service as a uniformed patrol officer a detective cannot have a great enough command of standard police procedures and problems and will find it difficult to work with uniformed colleagues.
In addition, in some US police departments, policies exist that limit the term that an officer may serve continuously as a detective, and mandate that detectives must regularly return to patrol duties for a minimum period of time. This is based upon a perception that the most important and essential police work is accomplished on patrol, and that the skills, experience and familiarity with their beats that patrol officers maintain are essential for detectives to maintain as well. Investigations, by contrast, often take weeks or months to complete, during which time detectives may spend much of their time away from the streets. In this thinking, rotating officers also promotes cross-training in a wider variety of skills, producing both better detectives and uniformed officers. Such policies also serve to prevent "cliques" within detective bureaus that can contribute to corruption or other unethical behavior.
Detectives obtain their position by competitive examination, covering such subjects as:
Principles, practices and procedures of investigations
Principles, practices and procedures of interviewing and interrogation
Local criminal law and procedures
Applicable law governing arrests, search and seizures, warrants and evidence
Police department records and reports
Principles, practices and objectives of courtroom testimony
Police department methods and procedures
Private detectives are licensed by the state in which they live after passing a competitive examination and a criminal background check. Some states, such as Maryland, require a period of classroom training as well.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Friday, October 11, 2002
Miranda Rights
The Miranda warning is a police warning that is given to criminal suspects in police custody in the United States before they are asked questions relating to the commission of crimes. Police may request biographical information such as name, date of birth and address without reading suspects their Miranda warnings. Compulsory confessions will not constitute admissible evidence unless suspects have been made aware of and waived their "Miranda rights".
The Miranda warnings were mandated by the 1966 United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Miranda v. Arizona as a means of protecting a criminal suspect's Fifth Amendment right to avoid coercive self-incrimination (see right to silence). However, since its creation by the Warren Court, the Supreme Court has indicated that the Miranda decision imposes "prophylactic" or preventative safeguards rather than protections mandated by the Fifth Amendment privilege.
Miranda rights
The Supreme Court did not specify the exact wording to be used when informing a suspect of his or her rights. However, they did set down a set of guidelines which must be followed. The ruling states:
...The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent him.
As a result, American English has acquired the verb Mirandize, meaning to read to a suspect his or her Miranda rights (when that suspect is taken into custody for the purpose of interrogation).
Typical Miranda warning
Though every U.S. jurisdiction has its own regulations regarding what, precisely, must be said to a person when they are arrested, the typical warning is as follows:
You have the right to remain silent. If you give up that right, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney and to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to you at no cost. During any questioning, you may decide at any time to exercise these rights, not answer any questions, or make any statements.
The courts have since ruled that the warning must be "meaningful", so it is usually required that the suspect be asked if he understands his rights. Sometimes, firm answers of "yes" are required. An arrestee's silence is not a waiver. Evidence has been ruled inadmissible because of an arrestee's poor knowledge of English and the failure of arresting officers to provide the warning in the arrestee's language.
Also because of various education levels, officers must make sure the suspect understands what the officer is saying. It may be necessary to "translate" to the suspect's level of understanding. Courts have ruled this admissible as long as the original waiver is said and the "translation" is recorded either on paper or on tape.
The right of a juvenile to remain silent without his or her parent or guardian present is provided in some jurisdictions.
The Miranda warnings were mandated by the 1966 United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Miranda v. Arizona as a means of protecting a criminal suspect's Fifth Amendment right to avoid coercive self-incrimination (see right to silence). However, since its creation by the Warren Court, the Supreme Court has indicated that the Miranda decision imposes "prophylactic" or preventative safeguards rather than protections mandated by the Fifth Amendment privilege.
Miranda rights
The Supreme Court did not specify the exact wording to be used when informing a suspect of his or her rights. However, they did set down a set of guidelines which must be followed. The ruling states:
...The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent him.
As a result, American English has acquired the verb Mirandize, meaning to read to a suspect his or her Miranda rights (when that suspect is taken into custody for the purpose of interrogation).
Typical Miranda warning
Though every U.S. jurisdiction has its own regulations regarding what, precisely, must be said to a person when they are arrested, the typical warning is as follows:
You have the right to remain silent. If you give up that right, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney and to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to you at no cost. During any questioning, you may decide at any time to exercise these rights, not answer any questions, or make any statements.
The courts have since ruled that the warning must be "meaningful", so it is usually required that the suspect be asked if he understands his rights. Sometimes, firm answers of "yes" are required. An arrestee's silence is not a waiver. Evidence has been ruled inadmissible because of an arrestee's poor knowledge of English and the failure of arresting officers to provide the warning in the arrestee's language.
Also because of various education levels, officers must make sure the suspect understands what the officer is saying. It may be necessary to "translate" to the suspect's level of understanding. Courts have ruled this admissible as long as the original waiver is said and the "translation" is recorded either on paper or on tape.
The right of a juvenile to remain silent without his or her parent or guardian present is provided in some jurisdictions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
