128 [7 9 O p
. A tt ’y
CRI M I NAL RE CORDS
C OL L E GE S AN D U NI V ERSI TI ES

) F AC UL T Y A CC E SS T O C RI MI NA L H I ST ORY I NFOR MAT I ON A BOUT S TUDENT S

O ct ober5, 1994 The H onor abl e John J

. H af er Ma ry la n d

S e n a te
Y ou hav e request ed o ur opini on con cerni ng t he cir cum st ances, i f any , underw hi ch cr i m i nal hi s t or yi nfor m at i on abouta s tudentat Fr os tbur g St at e U ni ver s i t ym aybe di s cl os ed byt he U ni ver s i t yPol i ce t o a f a c u l t y m e m b e ro ro t h e r m e m b e r o f t h e u n i v e r s i t y c o m m u n i t y. F o r th e re a so n s sta ted b e lo w , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e U n iv e rsity P o li ce g en era ll ym ayn o t disclose the s tud en t’ s c ri m inal h ist o ry r ecor d i nfor m at i on t o an i nt er es t ed fa cul t ym ember orot herper s on. I Backg r ound
A s w e u n d e rsta n d th e situ a tio n , a s tu d e n t at F ro stb u rg S tate U n iv e rsityw a s c h a rg e d w ith in d e c e n t ex p o su re . T h e U n iv e rsity Pol i ce ha d obt ai ned informat i on aboutt he arr es tfr om t he C ent r al R epos i t or y of t he D epar t m ent of Publ i c Safety and C o rr ect i onal Ser vi ces
. A ft erw o rd o f t he arr es ts pr ead a m ong m ember s of t he c o lle g e c o m m u n ity , a f

a c u ltym e m b e r m a d e a n in f o rm a l re q u e st to t h e U n i v e r s i t y P o l i c e f o rt h e a r r e s t e e ’ s c o n v i c t i o n r e c o r d , i f a n y. T he U ni ver s i t yw as advi s ed by i t s couns el t hat St at e l aw pr ohi bi t ed t he pol i ce f

r om di s cl os i ng t hi s i nfor m at i o n
. Y ou s ugges ti n y our l et t err eques t i ng an o p i ni on t hat , i n or dert o fur t hert he w el far e of ot herm ember s of t he comm uni t y , the cr i m i nal hi s t or yi nfor m at i on s h o u ld b e a v a ila b le to th e p u b lic

.

II
C ri m i nal H i s t ory R ecor d Inf orm at i on U n d er f ed era l r eg u lat ion s, the t erm “c ri m inal h ist o ryrec o rd i nfor m at i on” ( “C H R I ”) i s defi ned as “i nfor m at i on col l ect ed by c rim in a l ju s tice a g e n c ies o n in d iv id u a ls c o n sis tin g o f id e n tifia b leG en. 128] 129

The t er m “n o n c o nv icti o n

d a ta”me a n s “ a r rest information without 1 dis po sition

if an inte rv a l of

on e ye ar h as e la

ps e d f ro m th e dateof

arre st and no ac tive prosec ution of the cha rg e is pending” o r i nformation oth e rw iseindic atin gthat c ha rg e s w illno t be pu

rs ue d, a s w e ll a s a c qu itt a ls and dismissals of charg es. 28 C.F.R. §20.3(k) . The fe deral regulations a lso imp os e c e rt a in s tring e nt l imi tatio ns on thedis se min atio n o f j uv e nil e rec ords. 28 C.F.R. §20.21(d). descri pti on s and n o tat i on s of arr est s, detent i on s, i nd i ct m ents , i nfor m at i on, orot herfor m al cri m i nal char ges , and anydi s pos i t i on a ri sing there fro m , sen tenc ing , c o rr e c tio n a l s u p e rv is io n , a n d re le a s e .” 2 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 .3 (b ). A n yin f o rm a tio n th a t th e F ro stb u rg S tate U ni v er s i t yPol i ce mayhave c ol l ect ed aboutt he s tudentw ho w as c h a rg e d w ith a c ri m e c o n s titu te s C H R I.
T he f eder al r egul at i ons r equi r e t hat“nonconvi ct i on dat a” be s ubj ectt o l i m i t ed di s s emi nat i on onl y
. T hes e dat a maybe 1 di s s emi nat ed t o cr im inal j us t i ce a genci es , cer t ai n ot heraut hor i zed ind ividu als an d a g e n cies, an d rese arc h ers. 28 C

. F

. R

. § 2 0

. 2 1 (b). A par tfr om t hes e par t i cul arr equi r ement s , ho w ever , t he fe der al r egul at i ons gener al l ydefe rt o s t at e l aw r egar di ng t he di s s emi nat i on of C H R I : “St at es and l ocal gover nm ent s w i l l det er m i ne t he p u rp o se s f

o r w h ich d iss e m in a tio n o f [ C H R I] is a u th o riz e d b ysta te la w , e x e c u tiv e o rd e r, l o c a l o rd in a n c e , c o u rt ru le , d e c is io n o r o rd e r.” 2 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 .2 1 (c )( 3 ).
U ndert he M ar y l and s cheme gover ni ng C H R I , t he S ecr et ar yof Publi c Safe t yand C or r ect i onal Ser vi ces i s t o i s s ue r egul at i ons t hat g o v e rn th e c rim in a l ju stic e in f o rm a tio n sy ste m in M a ry lan d . A rticle 2 7 , § 7 4 6 (a ). S e e g e n e ra lly 63 O pi ni ons of

the At t or ney G ener al197, 214- 15 ( 1 9 7 8 ). T he Secr et ar y ’ s r egul at i ons ar e t o addr es s , among o ther thin g s, th e “ d issem ination o f c ri m inal h ist o ryrec o rd in f o rm a tio n b yth e c o u rt s a n d a ll o th e r c ri m in a l ju s tic e a g e n c ie s .” A rt ic le 2 7 , § 7 4 6 (b )( 1 ).
T he Secr et ar y ’ s r egul a t i o n s d i f f e r e n t i at e bet w een nonconvi ct i on C H R I and convi ct i on C H R I

. D i s s emi nat ion of nonconvi ct i on C H R I t o a pr i vat e par t yi s fl at l ypr ohi bi t ed “unl es s t he pr i vat e par t ypet i t i oneri s expr es s l y aut hor i zed by s t atut e, or di nance , exec ut i ve or der , or cour t rul e, or der , ordeci s i on s peci fy i ng t he r i ght of ac ces s t o nonconvi ct i on C H R I and t he purpos e and c ondi t i ons for a c c e s s .” C O M A R 1 2 .1 5 .0 1 .1 3 A (2 ).130 [7 9 O p
. A tt ’y

It is a ls o d o u

b tf u l wh e th e r any o f th e thr e e ty p e s of harm 2 specifie d in the regulation would be applica ble. T he g r ou nd s fo rdi s c l os ur e of c on vi c t i on CH RI a r e l ess r es t r i ct i ve, buts t i l l nar r ow
. T he C ent r al R epos i t or yi s pr ohi bi t ed f rom dis cl osi ng such C H R I t o a p ri vate partyun l ess the p arty

“ c o n v in c in g lyd e m o n stra tes ” th a t th e in f o rm a tio n p e rta in s to s om eone w ho “as an em p l oy ee,
. . . vol unt eer , orm ember of t he as s oci at i on” “w i l l have the ca pabi l i t yt o”:

( a) j eopar di ze t he l i fe ors afe t yof i nd i vidual s; ( b) caus e s i gni fi cantl os s ordamage by i ll egal l yacc es s i ng orm i s us i ng t he fi s cal or nonfi s cal as s et s of t he empl oy er
. . . orpubl i c; or (c ) o th e rw ise e n g a g e o r p a rtic ip a te in c rim in a l co n d u c t in v io latio n o f S tate , loc a l, a n d f e d e r a l l a w. C O M A R 12. 15. 01. 13A

. I ti s hi ghl ydoubt ful w het her a studenton a col l ege c ampus i s , w i t h r es pect t o a fac ul t ym ember , “an e m pl oy ee,

.. . v o lu n tee r, o r m e m b e r o f [ a n ] a ss o c iat io n .” T h u s, a f a c u lty 2 m ember pet i t i oni ng t he C ent r al R ep os i t or yforconvi ct i on in f o rm a tio n a b o u t a s tu d e n t w o u ld n o t b e a b le to o b ta in it.
T he r egul at i ons cont emp la t e a r ol e fora l aw enfor cement a g e n c ylik e th e U n iv e rsityP o lice in re sp o n d in g to p riv a te p a rty re q u e sts f

o r C H R I. B u t th e p o lice w o u ld b e a u th o riz e d to d o so o n ly i f a “ w r i t t en agr eement ” aut hor i zes t he pol i ce t o acton behal f of the Ce n t r a l Re p o s i t o r yi n r e s p o n d i n g t o CH RI i n q u i r i e s
. CO M AR 12. 15. 01. 10B

. It is ourunder s t andi ng t hatno s uch w r i t t en agr eementexi s t s bet w een the U ni versit yPol i ce a nd t he C ent r al R e p o sito ry . E v e n if th e re w e re su c h a n a g re e m e n t, th e p o lice w o u ld be s ubj ect t o t he same cr i t er i a for di s cl os ur e of c onvi ct i on C H R I as i s t he C ent r al R epos i t or y i t s el f and, fort he r eas ons expl ai ned i n t he pr evi ous par agr ap h , w e doubtt hatconvi ct i on C H R I w oul d beG en. 132] 131

We arenot herediscussing the situation in which a student might 3 be an employee supervised by a fa culty member ( a re search assistant, for examp l e)

. In that situation, a g overnme ntal “appointingauthority” may obtain acc ess t o b o th conviction and nonc onviction CHRIunder a different regulation, COMAR 12.15.01.12B(1). Se eals o 71 Opinions of the Attorney Ge neral 242 (1986) (leg ality of inquiringabout prospec tive employee’ s criminal convictions).
W e have c onsidered whether the fe deral Family

Educational 4 Rights and

Priva c y Ac t, c omm on ly

kn own a s th e B uckle y

Am e ndme nt, wo uld ba r theUn ivers ity

from disc los ingCH RI

re latin gto a

Un ivers ity stu de nt. Un de r 2 0 U .S. C. § 12 32 g (a)( 4) (B )(ii) , th e “ e du c atio n r e c ords ” that th e B uck ley

Am e ndme nt g e ne rally

ba rs from disc los ur ewi tho ut a student’s consent e x cludes re cords maintaine d by a law enforc ement ag ency of the e ducational ag ency or instituti on that were create d by the law enf orce ment unit f

or the purpose of law enforceme nt.” Thus, we do no t be lie ve that th e B uc kley Am e ndme nt w ou ld p ro hib it a c ha ng e in S tate law t o a llo w a gre ate r dis se min atio n of c onvic tio n CH RI a bo ut s tud e nts

. di s cl os abl e t o a fa cul t ym ember i nt er es t ed i n t he cr i m i nal hi s t or yof his or her s tud ents

. 3
S h o u ld y o u b e liev e th a t, as a p o licym a tter, in f o rm a tio n o f

th is k in d o u g h t to b e g e n e ra llya v a ilab le f ro m th e U n iv e rsityP o lice to m emb ers of t he uni ver s i t ycomm uni t y , a cha nge i n t he l aw w i l l be neede d. T he change coul d be ac compl i s hed t hr ough t he rul emaki ng p ro c e ss b y th e S e c re tar y o r, o f c o u rse , b yleg isla tio n . A t lea st w ith r es pect t o convi ct i on C H R I , fede r al l aw w oul d notbe an i m pedi m ent t o such a chan ge in t he S t at e’s res t ri ct i on s. 4
III C oncl usi on In su m m a ry , it is o u r o p in io n th a t S tate law c u rre n tlyp ro h ib its th e F r o stb u rg S tate U n iv e rsityP o lice f ro m d isc lo sin g to a f

a c u lty m e m b e r c ri m in a l h is to ry re c o rd in f o rm a tio n a b o u t a s tu d e n t. J. Jo sep h C u rran , Jr. A t t or ney G ener al
Ja c k S c h w a rtz C hi ef C ouns el O pi ni ons & Advi ce