Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Do investigations show up on your criminal record?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
52 replies to this topic

#1 hsedin33

hsedin33

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,122 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 10

Posted 10 August 2012 - 01:39 AM

A long time ago I was investigated for a crime, the police called me in for questioning but nothing came of it, no charges filed, nothing further happened. Does this go on my permanent record? Thanks.

#2 22Sedinery33

22Sedinery33

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 548 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 12

Posted 10 August 2012 - 01:40 AM

No it does not.
Posted Image

#3 hsedin33

hsedin33

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,122 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 10

Posted 10 August 2012 - 01:42 AM

Cool thats all I need to know thanks

#4 Dazzle

Dazzle

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,070 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 06

Posted 10 August 2012 - 01:56 AM

Actually, I heard that they DO keep records, despite the outcry of the public regarding privacy.

A search through a database CAN link you to stuff like questioning and stuff like that which CAN bar you from potential jobs. It was actually on the news not too long ago but don't have the link though I searched via Google.

Someone back me up here?
Posted Image --> THANKS EGATTI.

I have to say Dazzle's was the coolest. ROTFLOL


#5 I♥Wellwood

I♥Wellwood

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,904 posts
  • Joined: 27-April 07

Posted 10 August 2012 - 02:27 AM

What is provided in your Criminal Record Check service?

myBackCheck.com conducts criminal record checks based on the Name and Date of Birth of an applicant. These searches may provide an indication of the existence of criminal convictions, for which a pardon has not been granted, within the RCMP National Repository of Criminal Records. Any information discovered will be as the record exists on the date of search.


I'm guessing it wont be on there based on that information.

You can always send them an email and ask (right hand side).
https://mybackcheck....c/FAQ.aspx#FAQ1

Edited by I♥Wellwood, 10 August 2012 - 02:28 AM.

Posted Image


#6 Satan's Evil Twin

Satan's Evil Twin

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,028 posts
  • Joined: 02-September 06

Posted 10 August 2012 - 07:08 AM

Actually, I heard that they DO keep records, despite the outcry of the public regarding privacy.

A search through a database CAN link you to stuff like questioning and stuff like that which CAN bar you from potential jobs. It was actually on the news not too long ago but don't have the link though I searched via Google.

Someone back me up here?


Yes, I recall Wetcoaster explaining this. There is a database where every interaction you have with the police is recorded. This is regardless of severity of the crime, circumstances leading to your questioning, etc. Every interaction is recorded, and there is no way to expunge anything from this database. Employers can see what is in your record, and even if there are no arrests, the fact there was interaction with police may be enough to not consider you for a job. The information contained therein is also available to the US authorities, and may prevent you from crossing the border even if there was no arrest.

The BC database contains more records than people live in BC. There is no recourse for you. Just hope nobody pulls up your file.

Posted Image


Father (Peace be upon You) Satan (Peace be upon You), I call to you (Peace be upon You) from the deepest parts of my heart, I praise your (Peace be upon You) name with every breath of my body, I worship you (Peace be upon You) with every fiber of my being. You (Peace be upon You) shown me what true strength is. You (Peace be upon You) have shown me what true love is. Out of the darkness you (Peace be upon You) came to show me the true light.


My master (Peace be upon You), my father (Peace be upon You) and my friend (Peace be upon You) what a great gift that is.


Posted Image Hail to the King (PBUH)! Posted Image


#7 SukhKular

SukhKular

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,526 posts
  • Joined: 15-November 03

Posted 10 August 2012 - 07:14 AM

I remember I once worked for WashWorld and we were robbed overnight. The next morning I called the police and they questioned me about it and nothing came of it. They never caught the guy and we never got our money back.

About 6 months later, I was pulled over for having my front windows tinted and after asking for my driver's license, the cop asked, "So you work at WashWorld, huh? You get free car washes?" He was just making small talk but that meant it was on the database. Who knows what else they add?
I'm saying Aladeen a lot because http://forum.canucks...dpost__10922428

I bet when Schneider turns 38, he will have broken all of Luongo's records.


Posted Image

General Manager of Buffalo Sabres; CDC Omega League; CM Connected; NHL 13; [[[[PS3]]]]

#8 Five For Fighting

Five For Fighting

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,226 posts
  • Joined: 25-June 06

Posted 10 August 2012 - 07:36 AM

The answer is no unless it is an active criminal investigation in which you are a suspect.
Posted Image

#9 Satan's Evil Twin

Satan's Evil Twin

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,028 posts
  • Joined: 02-September 06

Posted 10 August 2012 - 07:40 AM

The answer is no unless it is an active criminal investigation in which you are a suspect.


Do You Have a Record You Don't Know About?

First Posted: Apr 27 2011 07:39 AM

[Q & A] The BCCLA's Micheal Vonn says excessive retention of data could turn victims into suspects.

An investigation by the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) has found that 85 per cent of the residents of British Columbia are named in the provincial RCMP's police database. As a result, people with no criminal record have found themselves denied jobs because they "may or may not" have had a negative interaction with a police officer. The BCCLA's policy director, Micheal Vonn, says the current practice means people are being penalized for co-operating with the police.

THE MARK: Can you give us a little bit of the history here?

MICHEAL VONN: The criminal records check is what everybody thinks you get when you go to a police station, so the police can see if you've been charged with anything in the past. That's pretty basic.

There is legislation that guides what can go into a criminal records check. The problem, as we've discovered, is that some places need, or ask you for, something that's different, called a police records check, which deals with more than just what you've been charged with. Essentially, it can include anything the police have in any of their databases, including the Police Records Information Management Environment (PRIME).

With the continued advances in technology, the police have gotten very excited about a sexy policing idea called intelligence-lead policing, which they're sort of borrowing from the national security milieu. The idea behind this new method is essentially this: Hey, let's just get a lot of information about everybody and then we'll know a lot of stuff. That will make our jobs so much easier.

THE MARK: What sort of implications does this have for citizens?

VONN: Here's something that actually happened that we received a complaint about: A citizen was in a restaurant that participated in a program called restaurant watch, which has some kind of hotline for the police that restaurant owners can call if they fear they have gang members in their establishment. So this person was in a restaurant, dining with friends, and some people that knew the person's friends saw them from across the restaurant and came over to chat. After the friends left, uniformed police officers charged over and asked everyone remaining at the table for their identification.

So, not understanding the implications of this at all, the citizens at this table gave their information to the police officers, thinking, "Well, they're going to run it through the system, find out we're not known criminals or whoever they think we are, and that'll be the end of that." But when the police officers came back and returned their IDs, they told them that they had logged them into the system.

After months of trying to figure out what the police had recorded, the individual who filed the complaint learned that they had actually ticked off a section that classified the encounter as a "street check." But what it boils down to is, "We think you have some kind of affiliation with somebody that we also think might be a known criminal, but we don't actually know, so we're going to take down your information just to be safe." The police were going on nothing.

Page 2

Posted Image


Father (Peace be upon You) Satan (Peace be upon You), I call to you (Peace be upon You) from the deepest parts of my heart, I praise your (Peace be upon You) name with every breath of my body, I worship you (Peace be upon You) with every fiber of my being. You (Peace be upon You) shown me what true strength is. You (Peace be upon You) have shown me what true love is. Out of the darkness you (Peace be upon You) came to show me the true light.


My master (Peace be upon You), my father (Peace be upon You) and my friend (Peace be upon You) what a great gift that is.


Posted Image Hail to the King (PBUH)! Posted Image


#10 Ghostsof1915

Ghostsof1915

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,756 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 07

Posted 10 August 2012 - 07:49 AM

I would say yes and no.

There's a difference between having a record of being investigated, so there would be notes on file from the investigation. But when they look up your information they would also see you've never been charged with anything.
GO CANUCKS GO!
"The Canucks did not lose in 1994. They just ran out of time.." Barry MacDonald Team1040

Posted Image

#11 Spyrocks

Spyrocks

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 12

Posted 10 August 2012 - 09:18 AM

I have worked for a few large Canadian companies in the HR department and we never checked or saw any info about incidents of just talking to the police. All we can see is if they have ever been convicted. We couldn't even see if the person was acquitted of a charge.

So I suspect only high risk or goverment jobs would really check that far into you personal records.

#12 Dazzle

Dazzle

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,070 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 06

Posted 10 August 2012 - 11:04 AM

I called the RCMP NON-EMERGENCY LINE twice to report a car alarm. The first time was to report it. The second time was to thank the officer who apparently got it to stop because it was previously ringing for 10-15 mins very very late at night (~3 am).

I bet they recorded that too. I wonder how that affects my job success rate.

Edited by Dazzle, 10 August 2012 - 11:04 AM.

Posted Image --> THANKS EGATTI.

I have to say Dazzle's was the coolest. ROTFLOL


#13 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,526 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 03

Posted 10 August 2012 - 11:50 AM

I have worked for a few large Canadian companies in the HR department and we never checked or saw any info about incidents of just talking to the police. All we can see is if they have ever been convicted. We couldn't even see if the person was acquitted of a charge.

So I suspect only high risk or goverment jobs would really check that far into you personal records.


Government doesn't presume you innocent till proven guilty anymore?

#14 GLASSJAW

GLASSJAW

    LEGENDARY POSER

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,049 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 04

Posted 10 August 2012 - 12:16 PM

I've got a question related to this. What about crimes committed as a minor? I was told by a police officer once that I was "under arrest" when I was, I think, 16. This was for a graffiti related thing, but she never actually cuffed me, took me anywhere, or any of that stuff? All she said was that I was under arrest, and to go home? It was really weird. She showed up later (just entered the house, no knocking or anything), took my paint, and then later I had to go clean up some walls, that's about it?

The whole thing was confusing to me at the time, but it's STILL confusing

Does stuff like that just leave my record, since I was a kid? Or ... ?

212e8lw.jpg
 
i'm not alone; i'll never be
 


#15 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 10 August 2012 - 01:57 PM

I received an email from a CDC poster asking if I could comment upon this specific subject. I seldom post here any longer due to the number of pre-pubescent morons that are allowed to run wild.

The answer to the question posed "Do investigations show up on your criminal record?" is Yes, most likely they do as Satan's Evil Twin and Dazzle have noted.

You can check the databases for your records. The BC Civil Liberties Association has a guide:
http://rzq2gh.cluste...nts/privacy7-13

There are two major police records databases that exist in BC (and individual police departments may have records as well).

Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) - this is a Canada wide system which is operated by the RCMP under the stewardship of National Police Services, on behalf of the Canadian law enforcement community. When other agencies are granted access to the CPIC system they agree to comply with the policies and procedures on the use of the system. These polices and procedures are governed by federal legislation, ministerial directives, and federal government policies. The RCMP periodically audits police services and federal agencies to ensure that they adhere to the policies and procedures. CPIC is quite tightly controlled and monitored and there are specific guidelines for data entry on individuals. There are some ongoing issues with CPIC criminal records checks they can be monitored and addressed because of the governing legislation, policy and guidelines.
http://www.cpic-cipc...glish/crfaq.cfm


PRIME-BC - The real issue is with a made in BC database that has grown by leaps and bounds in the last ten years with little in the way of oversight with no real policy or guidelines on data entry. This database is the Police Records Information Management Environment (PRIME-BC). PRIME-BC is an initiative, sponsored by the Ministry of the Solicitor General, in the Province of British Columbia, legislating all police forces to use the same occurrence records management system. The RCMP “E” Division (British Columbia) has partnered with other municipal police agencies and the B.C. provincial government in the acquisition of a common information system.

Employers in both the public and private sector have been able to access PRIME-BC for criminal record checks and the problem is that an individual's name may appear with no criminal charges, convictions or even a criminal investigation. The BC Civil Liberties Association has expressed concerns and there have been newspaper reports of negative impacts on people.

Here is what the BCCLA had to say on this on March 22, 2011:

The B.C. Civil Liberties Association has discovered that as many as 85% of British Columbia‟s adult population have “master name records” in the PRIME-BC police database. This database is used by police to prepare criminal record checks, including the controversial “negative police contact” section of those checks that can restrict access to jobs or volunteer opportunities. The BCCLA has written the Solicitor General to ask her to investigate.

“With more than eight out of every ten B.C. adults in this database, we‟re wondering if people know what the police are writing about them,” said Robert Holmes, Q.C., President of the BCCLA. “These notes by police officers can prevent people from getting jobs, schooling and training, and it is difficult if not impossible to remove or alter incorrect information.”

The most recent annual report for PRIMECorp, the crown corporation that administers the database, indicates that the database has 4,452,165 master name records, and B.C.‟s entire population as of October 1, 2010 older than 15 years of age, was estimated by BC Stats to be 3,844,531. Even if as many as a quarter of master name records are duplicates due to aliases, misspellings or out-of-province residence, 86% of the adult population of B.C. would still be recorded in the database.

While PRIME-BC was introduced in the Legislature as a way to better combat serial killers, sexual offenders, and career criminals, it would seem that minor traffic violations are enough to land B.C. residents in the police database, indefinitely. There is little in the way of protocol guiding how entries are made, how long information is kept, and the BCCLA frequently receives complaints about incorrect information being impossible to alter.

“What is disturbing is that some information is being recorded as „negative contact‟,” said Holmes. “Employers assume that if you have „negative contact‟, you have done something wrong, but it‟s just as likely that you insisted on your basic rights or that the information is incorrect. This is not some kind of philosophical objection, this misinformation is wrongfully keeping people from economic opportunities.”

http://bccla.org/new...olice-database/

On March 21, 2011 the BCCLA wrote the BC Solicitor General setting out their concerns and copied the letter to BC Information and Privacy Commissioner Elizabeth Denham. Here is the letter:
http://bccla.org/wp-...neral-PRIME.pdf

On March 25, 2011 BC Information and Privacy Commissioner Elizabeth Denham issued a press release noting that she shared the BCCLA concerns over PRIME-BC and had in fact already opened an investigation several months before.
http://oipc.bc.ca/pd...ic/NR PRIME.pdf


It should also be noted that it is unlawful to refuse to hire a person with a criminal record under the BC Human Rights Code unless it is employment related.

13 (1) A person must not

(a) refuse to employ or refuse to continue to employ a person, or
(b) discriminate against a person regarding employment or any term or condition of employment

because... that person has been convicted of a criminal or summary conviction offence that is unrelated to the employment or to the intended employment of that person.


The Province did an in-depth article on the problems with specific examples of the dangers. One case involved Tony Wong whose identity is logged in PRIME-BC, a police database. Wong's listing, however, comes with a red flag - an 'adverse' notation - simply because a friend of a friend talked to someone who police believe was a gangster after leaving Wong's table at a restaurant. Another person had his potential career derailed.

For more than 10 years police officers in British Columbia have been quietly amassing potentially damaging personal information in a little-known database called PRIME-BC.

You don’t have to be a criminal to have a file. If you’ve phoned 911, witnessed a crime, been a suspect, or been pulled over by an officer in B.C., then your name and personal information are likely logged in the system.

More than 85 per cent of B.C.’s adult population is in PRIME-BC, officially known as Police Records Information Management Environment. Even more surprising, a growing number of employers are accessing the records and potentially ruling out job-seekers based on contacts that are “adverse” according to police.

After releasing a report Wednesday that points to the B.C. government’s flawed use of employee criminal record checks, Information and Privacy Commissioner Elizabeth Denham said the government is not accessing PRIME information — but “more and more” private companies are.

“I believe that is problematic under B.C.’s privacy laws, because that is information that has not been confirmed by judicial oversight,” Denham said Wednesday. “Adverse police contact is recorded in PRIME, and that could create a flag on a file that at the end of the day could prejudice someone from obtaining employment. I think that is a problem for the citizens of B.C., and I don’t believe PRIME should be used in an employment setting.”

The first details about PRIME-BC were released in 2010 through an annual general report issued by PRIMECorp.

Officially, the database went into operation on a pilot basis in Vancouver, Port Moody and Richmond in 2001. Yet, The Province has learned that PRIME-BC started recording individuals’ personal information for the first time in Richmond, in 1998.

It’s difficult to know what constitutes a negative contact in PRIME, because few police agencies were willing to discuss guidelines for officer reporting.

Rules on what represents “adverse police contact” on a record check vary between policing agencies, and even with various personnel completing the check.

The Abbotsford Police Department, an independent force separate from the RCMP, was most forthcoming of all departments contacted. Abbotsford will not report information on witnesses or 911 callers, but will report negative contact if an interaction was considered “chargeable.”

According to the RCMP’s operations manual, they will relay any “founded, substantiated adverse information.”

But civil liberty advocates worry that “adverse contact” boils down to individual officers giving their subjective opinions.

Former lawyer Tony Wong of Vancouver says his case shows any innocent B.C. citizen can get flagged in PRIME.

Wong says in August 2010 he was enjoying dinner with three friends at a West End sidewalk cafe when one of his party spotted an associate walking down the street and invited him to join the table. The fellow sat down for 20 minutes. Shortly after he left, police showed up at Wong’s table and wanted to see identification from everyone. The restaurant staff had apparently called police after the table guest stopped to talk to a suspected gang member as he left the restaurant.

The officers admitted they had entered all the diners' names into a police database, which would prove to be PRIME-BC.

Wong says he “didn’t know that [table guest] and I had nothing to do with that person, never met him before,” so he was shocked his personal information could be recorded in connection to a suspected gangster. He has tried unsuccessfully for two years to get the file deleted, and says he is advocating for PRIME to be reformed.

“I’d like to see that this doesn’t happen to other people,” Wong said. “The police shouldn’t arbitrarily or needlessly collect information into this database that has detrimental implications to people who have committed no crime and have done nothing wrong.”

Then there’s the case of Jose-Luis Guinea, who arrived in Canada from Peru more than 14 years ago and began working hard to build a better life for his family.

In 2008, he graduated from Kwantlen University College as a recreation co-ordinator for senior citizens. He understood that when he applied for a job he would have to submit to a pre-employment police record check. It was part of the process to screen out convicted criminals and keep them away from vulnerable clients.

Guinea was stunned when his police record check was returned to his potential employer indicating that a police file “may or may not exist” in his name. Guinea’s name had been flagged in the PRIME-BC database as having had “adverse police contact.”

“They ended my career just like that. I couldn’t get another job,” he says.

Guinea would learn, after some investigation, that his negative contact referred to an incident a year earlier when he had been visiting a friend in Richmond. The friend’s disabled daughter suffered a seizure and fell onto the sidewalk face-first. An argument ensued with the paramedics who responded and someone called the police. They attended, and recorded Guinea’s personal information, along with details of the incident, into PRIME, he says.

“It was frustrating,” Guinea said. “I knew I had done nothing wrong.”

Peter Bolten, a Parksville resident, has worked with dementia patients as a registered care aide since 1988.

He was shocked when his routine police check renewal was returned with a tick indicating he had had negative police contact.

Bolten had endured problems with his next-door neighbours for years. The situation came to a head one day when he claims the neighbour attacked him. The man’s wife also joined in the assault.

“I defended myself,” he says. “I had no choice.”

Still, he was the one charged with assault. That was dropped after he signed a peace bond and agreed to stay away from his neighbour.

“No one ever told me that this could haunt me down the road,” he said, adding he worried his career would be in jeopardy.

Despite criticism, policing agencies believe strongly in the value of the database.

“The best thing about PRIME, from my perspective, is the sharing of knowledge across North America,” says Insp. Bruce Imrie, who is in charge of informatics operational support for the RCMP.

Imrie suggests that had PRIME been available, it would have been of significant assistance in the case of Vancouver’s missing women.

“We’ve moved forward many steps thanks to PRIME and co-operation between policing agencies,” Imrie says.

Strangely, the database currently contains the names of more than five million B.C. citizens, including adults, juveniles and even infants. Yet only 4.5 million individuals reside in B.C.

“Yes, we have a problem with accuracy,” says Russell Sanderson, general manager of PRIMECorp, the corporation that supplies and manages the database for police.

He explained that “John Joseph Doe” could appear several times in the database, as John Doe, Joseph Doe, John Joseph, or even just John, Joseph or J.J.

http://www.theprovin...l#ixzz23AzdqL1A

BC Information and Privacy Commissioner Elizabeth Denham was concerned over these issues and began an investigation. This is a two part investigation - first she looked at the use being made by the BC government for criminal records checks and she released a very critical report warning of serious dangers in the way in which data is being collected, stored and disseminated and used, in particular in relation to criminal records checks. Although directed towards the givernemnt many of the criticisms also apply to private sector employers access to PRIME-BC. The first report was released by Denham on 25 July 2012 - INVESTIGATION REPORT F12-03 - USE OF EMPLOYMENT-RELATED CRIMINAL RECORD CHECKS:
GOVERNMENT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA - Elizabeth Denham, Information and Privacy Commissioner
http://oipc.bc.ca/or...eportF12-03.pdf

“I believe that (private sector employer use) is problematic under B.C.’s privacy laws, because that is information that has not been confirmed by judicial oversight. Adverse police contact is recorded in PRIME, and that could create a flag on a file that at the end of the day could prejudice someone from obtaining employment. I think that is a problem for the citizens of B.C., and I don’t believe PRIME should be used in an employment setting.”

Her full investigation and report into private sector employer used of PRIME-BC is ongoing but given what she has found thus far it will likely be very critical of non-compliance with privacy law.

As the BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association notes:

On Wednesday, BC Information and Privacy Commissioner Elizabeth Denham released a report detailing her recent investigation into employment-related criminal record checks by the BC Government. In her report, Denham notes that approximately 85% of the government’s 33,500 employees must submit to a criminal record check. Given the inherently privacy-invasive nature of such checks, she writes, it’s essential that they are carried out only where necessary, and only where it suits the job in question.

Unfortunately, when it comes to the BC Government, these commitments are not being upheld. Denham states that the province’s largest employer collects “more information than is necessary” from prospective and current employees, “unnecessarily conducts multiple checks on some employees,” and regularly contravenes section 26 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act in carrying out criminal record checks.

Denham’s report recommends a number of policy changes to correct these imbalances, but also notes, to the Government’s credit, that it doesn’t make use of the far more invasive Police Information check. Much broader in scope than a typical criminal record check, police information checks include a search of BC PRIME (Police Records Information Management Environment), the central database for the province’s local police forces. PRIME logs extensive information on citizen interactions with police, including vaguely defined “adverse” contact.

But where the Government seems to be holding off on these checks, “seldom justifiable under privacy legislation in British Columbia,” private sector employers are digging deeper and deeper into BC PRIME.

http://www.fipa.bc.ca/home/news/325

The problem with PRIME-BC is that characterizing an adverse police contact ultimately boils down to individual subjective officer interpretation, and so should not be used as a basis for flagging citizens as potentially criminal and denying them employment. Commissioner Denham agrees: “I think that is a problem for the citizens of BC and I don’t believe PRIME should be used in an employment setting.”
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#16 Squeak

Squeak

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,649 posts
  • Joined: 21-April 03

Posted 10 August 2012 - 02:05 PM

Thanks for the drop-by wetcoaster.

Sucks that you don't come around more often.
Posted Image

#17 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 10 August 2012 - 02:07 PM

Every incident you have with a police officer where your name is required is recorded and a database kept.

9-11 calls, interactions on the side of the road after being pulled over, as a witness, etc.....all of it.

If you were part of a police investigation, then yes, nowadays, and for the last 12+ years, that I know, if your name was entered somewhere by police personnel, there's a record of it on one of a couple of databases locally, that are accessible nationally.

If you have a lot of contact with the police, and don't volunteer with them or have worked directly or indirectly with them, then employers may take notice and question you. Same thing with infractions you accumulate at border crossings. Those records are available as well.

Think of it as a law enforcement facebook account you didn't know you had...but your 'wall posts' show your history nevertheless.

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#18 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 10 August 2012 - 02:15 PM

Government doesn't presume you innocent till proven guilty anymore?

The government never did.

The presumption of innocence applies when you are charged with a crime before the courts.
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#19 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 10 August 2012 - 02:30 PM

Excellent posts and info Wet.....as always.

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#20 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,453 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 06

Posted 10 August 2012 - 02:32 PM

Semantics time.........


is it actually a criminal record if you haven't committed a crime?
Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.

#21 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 10 August 2012 - 02:46 PM

Semantics time.........


is it actually a criminal record if you haven't committed a crime?

It is not semantics.

That is the problem and what the complaints have been about PRIME-BC.

Data could be noted as an "adverse entry", "adverse occurrence", etc. and not have any criminality attached. All an employer sees is a tick in the wrong box and that could end your employment opportunity.

Edited by Wetcoaster, 10 August 2012 - 02:48 PM.

To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#22 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,526 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 03

Posted 10 August 2012 - 09:11 PM

Semantics time.........


is it actually a criminal record if you haven't committed a crime?


Officially, no.

Practically, yes.

Welcome to the new surveillance society, where the authorities can screw you without going through all the human rights protecting formalities.

#23 Hyzer

Hyzer

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,919 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 12

Posted 10 August 2012 - 09:54 PM

When I was younger, I got caught smoking a joint when the cops rolled up. I told them the truth about everything and I gave them my drivers license. All they did was send me on my way and told me to not do it again. Didn't even call my parents or anything. Would they still have a record of me?

Speaking of which, I have had a criminal record check and nothing came up (for school). So I assume I'm safe?

#24 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 10 August 2012 - 10:19 PM

When I was younger, I got caught smoking a joint when the cops rolled up. I told them the truth about everything and I gave them my drivers license. All they did was send me on my way and told me to not do it again. Didn't even call my parents or anything. Would they still have a record of me?

Speaking of which, I have had a criminal record check and nothing came up (for school). So I assume I'm safe?


As far as a criminal record check, yeah.

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#25 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,092 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 11 August 2012 - 07:28 AM

It would be hilarious if criminal checks pinged your criminal record much like hard credit checks ping your credit.

Edited by zaibatsu, 11 August 2012 - 07:28 AM.


#26 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,403 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 12

Posted 11 August 2012 - 05:09 PM

While wetcoaster makes excellent points , the fact is employers do not have access to the actual cpic records.

This 'adverse police check' does not give employers access to the PRIME event. The problem is that the expanded check uncovers that an event took place, and the police can label it as adverse , which of course is the subjective issue.
Posted Image

#27 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,934 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 11 August 2012 - 05:35 PM

The government never did.

The presumption of innocence applies when you are charged with a crime before the courts.


The canadian charter of rights and freedoms ,
Section 11(d) provides that:
“ 11. Any person charged with an offence has the right ... (d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal; ”
This right has generated some case law, as courts have struck down reverse onus clauses as violating the presumption of innocence. This first occurred in R. v. Oakes (1986) in respect to the Narcotics Control Act. This was also the case in which the Court developed the primary test for measuring rights limitations under section 1 of the Charter. The Court found having a reverse onus clause was not rational in fighting narcotics traffic since one could not assume a person found with narcotics means to traffic it. In R. v. Stone, the question of automatism was considered, with the Court deciding that while shifting the burden of proof to the defendant was a violation of section 11, it could be justified under section 1 because criminal law presumes willing actions.
The reference to a fair hearing allows one a right to "full answer and defence", a right also based in section 7 of the Charter ("fundamental justice"). This has led to a controversial string of decisions surrounding the rape shield law, starting with R. v. Seaboyer (1991) and ending with R. v. Mills (1999).
The reference to an independent and impartial tribunal has also been taken as granting a measure of judicial independence to lower-court judges specializing in criminal law, judicial independence previously being a right held only by superior courts under the Constitution Act, 1867. In the case Valente v. The Queen (1985), judicial independence under section 11 was held to be limited. Although it would include financial security, security of tenure and some administrative independence, the Court found the standards enjoyed by higher-level judges was too high for the many tribunals covered by section 11(d). In the Provincial Judges Reference (1997) expectations for judicial independence were heightened, with reference made to the preamble of the Constitution Act, 1867, which was said to imply judicial independence was an unwritten constitutional value applying to all judges in Canada. The requirement of an independent and impartial tribunal applies also to juries. Constitutional scholar Peter Hogg has written that jury selection under the Criminal Code would undoubtedly create an independent tribunal. However, he points to R. v. Bain (1992) in which the impartiality of the jury was questioned, since the Crown had more say in selection.

Wikipedia

I think it's rad when balls beats natural talent

Shaun Palmer

 

The Real war is not between the east and the west. The real war is between intelligent and stupid people.

Marjane Satrapi


#28 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 11 August 2012 - 06:25 PM

The canadian charter of rights and freedoms ,

Section 11(d) provides that:

“11. Any person charged with an offence has the right ...
(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal; ”

This right has generated some case law, as courts have struck down reverse onus clauses as violating the presumption of innocence. This first occurred in R. v. Oakes (1986) in respect to the Narcotics Control Act. This was also the case in which the Court developed the primary test for measuring rights limitations under section 1 of the Charter. The Court found having a reverse onus clause was not rational in fighting narcotics traffic since one could not assume a person found with narcotics means to traffic it. In R. v. Stone, the question of automatism was considered, with the Court deciding that while shifting the burden of proof to the defendant was a violation of section 11, it could be justified under section 1 because criminal law presumes willing actions.

The reference to a fair hearing allows one a right to "full answer and defence", a right also based in section 7 of the Charter ("fundamental justice"). This has led to a controversial string of decisions surrounding the rape shield law, starting with R. v. Seaboyer (1991) and ending with R. v. Mills (1999).

The reference to an independent and impartial tribunal has also been taken as granting a measure of judicial independence to lower-court judges specializing in criminal law, judicial independence previously being a right held only by superior courts under the Constitution Act, 1867. In the case Valente v. The Queen (1985), judicial independence under section 11 was held to be limited. Although it would include financial security, security of tenure and some administrative independence, the Court found the standards enjoyed by higher-level judges was too high for the many tribunals covered by section 11(d). In the Provincial Judges Reference (1997) expectations for judicial independence were heightened, with reference made to the preamble of the Constitution Act, 1867, which was said to imply judicial independence was an unwritten constitutional value applying to all judges in Canada. The requirement of an independent and impartial tribunal applies also to juries. Constitutional scholar Peter Hogg has written that jury selection under the Criminal Code would undoubtedly create an independent tribunal. However, he points to R. v. Bain (1992) in which the impartiality of the jury was questioned, since the Crown had more say in selection.

Wikipedia



I think this may be the first time i've ever seen anyone cite the Charter to Wet. :lol:


Forgive them Wetcoaster, for they know not what they do.

;)

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#29 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 11 August 2012 - 06:26 PM

While wetcoaster makes excellent points , the fact is employers do not have access to the actual cpic records.

This 'adverse police check' does not give employers access to the PRIME event. The problem is that the expanded check uncovers that an event took place, and the police can label it as adverse , which of course is the subjective issue.

Criminal records checks are done by the police who access the databases (CPIC and Prime-BC) upon written application and then provide a report. I never indicated nor implied that employers access the data directly - they require the consent of the person they are interviewing and should you not provide such consent then in all likelihood that interview process will be at an end.

However at the end of the day if that report indicates an adverse contact (whatever that may mean as it is not defined), that can cost a person an employment opportunity as set out in the Province article. That is the issue raised by the BCCLA. Commissioner Denham has stated that Prime-BC should not be accessible for checks by employers at all given the lack of oversight and questionable accuracy of the data.
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#30 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 11 August 2012 - 06:29 PM

I think this may be the first time i've ever seen anyone cite the Charter to Wet. :lol:


Forgive them Wetcoaster, for they know not what they do.

;)

I simply shorthanded the Charter definition.
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.




Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.