What checks cost, what they see, and the FCRA rights most applicants never use
| Record type | Visible? | Lookback |
|---|
Background checks are a regulated industry wearing a mysterious reputation: what they cost ($25–250 by depth), what they can legally show (a lookback table, not a bottomless file), and what rights you have when one goes wrong (substantial, under the FCRA, and almost never exercised) are all knowable. This guide covers the four contexts — employer screening you, landlord screening you, you auditing yourself, and personal checks — with the rights and error-dispute playbook that decide close cases.
The table above is the heart of it: convictions report long-term (indefinitely in most states; 7-year caps in California-class states for many roles), arrests without conviction largely can't be used, evictions and civil judgments run 7 years, bankruptcies 10, and expunged records legally vanish — though cheap databases lag on removals, making "the record that should be gone" the most disputed error class. Education and employment claims get verified by phone at the deep tier: the embellished title and the almost-finished degree surface there, and verification failures kill more offers than old misdemeanors do.
Before a job hunt or apartment search: free credit reports, your state court portal under your name, your MVR ($5–15), the FBI identity summary ($18) if federal roles loom, and file requests to the major screeners. An hour of looking finds the mixed file or zombie record while it's an annoyance instead of a lost offer. Pair with the identity-theft stack — the same errors often share a root.
Mostly no: the FCRA caps non-conviction records at 7 years, and many states bar considering arrests at all (California, New York among them). Convictions are the durable record — and even those face 7-year caps and relevance requirements in a growing set of states.
From courthouse records, yes; from cheap aggregator databases, eventually — the lag is the problem. If an expunged record surfaces, dispute it with the screener (they must fix it) and consider the state-law claims expungement statutes often provide against reporters of sealed records.
Legally the eviction shouldn't even be REPORTED past 7 years. Within 7: yes, in most places, though several cities (Seattle-class) restrict eviction-history use. Dismissed filings deserve a dispute — 'was sued and won' is not 'was evicted,' and screeners routinely blur it.
No — people-search sites disclaim FCRA compliance, meaning using them for hiring/renting decisions is unlawful, and their data is aggregator-grade (mixed files, zombie records). FCRA-compliant caregiver checks cost $40-100, require the candidate's consent, and stand up if anything goes wrong.
Standard checks: nothing — social scraping isn't in the databases. Some employers add FCRA-compliant social-media screening services (redacted for protected classes) or just… look, which no statute prevents for public posts. The audit-your-own-privacy-settings advice writes itself.
Possibly a good one: FCRA violations (no pre-adverse notice, failure to reinvestigate, reporting barred records) carry statutory damages plus attorney's fees, and consumer attorneys take them on contingency. Save the rejection communications and the erroneous report; the paper trail IS the case.
Yes — this guide runs locally in your browser; nothing you select is transmitted.
Audit your own file before the stakes arrive, use the pre-adverse window when it counts, and screen others only through consent-based, FCRA-compliant channels. Background checks are a documents game — the person holding their own file plays it best.