CRA_DR_Blue_V2.0.jpg
Intelicrunch_Banner_Header.jpg

Arkansas Supreme Court Rules in PBSA Freedom of Information Act Lawsuit


On November 5, 2020, the Arkansas Supreme Court released its opinion on a lawsuit filed by the Professional Background Screening Association (PBSA) in 2018 against a Clerk of the District Court in Benton County, Arkansas, that upheld a Circuit Court Judge’s decision requiring that clerk to release court records under the state’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), according to a report from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.


The Democrat-Gazette reported the lawsuit filed by the PBSA – a non-profit trade group representing screening firms formerly known as the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS) – claimed the clerk tried to “thwart the background check process” by requiring “any people seeking individual court records to pay $5,000, complete a compiled records license agreement, and obtain a compiled records license.”


The Democrat-Gazette also reported the lawsuit titled JONES v. PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND SCREENING ASSOCIATION, INC “claimed requests for court records by association members are governed by the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act. Pulaski County Circuit Judge Chris Piazza agreed with the association. The state Supreme Court upheld Piazza’s ruling.” The complete story about the PBSA lawsuit ruling is available here.


According to the facts alleged in the original complaint, an Arkansas PBSA member offering background screening services in the state was informed beginning in February 2018 that the Arkansas State Supreme Court Administrative Order 19 and not the FOIA governed requests for court records to be used for criminal background checks. PBSA stated that the clerk had reiterated this position as recently as July 10, 2018.


On July 23, 2018, the PBSA filed a lawsuit against a clerk in the Bentonville Division of the District Court of Benton County in Arkansas for allegedly refusing “to provide background screening firms access to records from her court” and claimed that the clerk used her official position as clerk to impede the background screening process by relying “on a gross misinterpretation” of Order 19, according to a report from Arkansas Online on July 25, 2020. FULL ARTICLE

© 2020  InteliCrunch.com

InteliCrunch is a free service provided by a collective of people who monitor the background screening industry and how events affect not only the people in it, but even more importantly, the real human impact the industry has on today's society.*All third party logos and / or images used on this website are the sole property and / or registered trademarks of their respective companies or copyright holders. Use of these logos, images or likenesses does not, in any way, imply the endorsement of InteliCrunch by any of the businesses, brands or individuals represented, their parent companies, officers, employees, partners, or affiliates. Any such usage is for informational / news purposes only.  Any / all articles, announcements, releases or third-party-authored content is / are linked back to the original "source"  and author credit given  Furthermore, InteliCrunch is not responsible for, and does not warrant the safety of any third-party links or sites to which any viewer may be directed from InteliCrunch.  InteliCrunch has made reasonable efforts to ensure that any news or informational links on the site are from "known and reputable"  sources / websites.