Last reviewed: September 16, 2026
This policy explains the research and publishing standards used for criminal-record.org/ location guides. It is intentionally detailed because record-access information can cause real confusion when jurisdiction, record type, or source authority is not explained correctly.
Our central editorial rule: identify the authoritative source
Search results often mix official courts, government agencies, commercial background services, people-search websites, attorney pages, news reports, old PDFs, and scraped directories. Our first responsibility is to determine which public body actually maintains or administers the information the reader is trying to find.
Source hierarchy
We generally give the greatest weight to current primary sources, including:
- state judiciary and administrative office of the courts websites;
- official county, circuit, district, superior, municipal, magistrate, or other court websites;
- clerks of court and official records offices;
- state police, department of public safety, bureau of investigation, or equivalent criminal-history repositories;
- departments of corrections, county sheriffs, detention centers, and official inmate systems;
- official sex-offender registries and public-safety systems;
- state statutes, court rules, administrative rules, ordinances, and agency regulations;
- official forms, fee schedules, instructions, service notices, and government FAQs; and
- government-published contact directories and office-location pages.
Secondary sources may help us understand context or discover terminology, but they should not replace a readily available authoritative source for a factual procedure.
How we distinguish an official website
A .gov domain is a useful indicator but is not the only test. Some courts, clerks, sheriffs, and local governments use domains that do not end in .gov, and some official search portals are operated by technology vendors on behalf of a government agency. We verify those relationships by tracing the link from the responsible government’s own website or documentation.
Record-type separation
Our articles should explain when sources have different scopes. Examples:
- Court case search: generally reflects cases filed in a specific court system and may show docket or disposition information.
- State criminal-history repository: may provide a statewide record check subject to state law and repository rules.
- Booking or arrest source: may reflect detention or booking events and should not be described as a conviction database.
- Inmate search: generally reflects current or historical custody information from a corrections or jail system.
- Warrant information: can be incomplete, restricted, or operationally sensitive and may require direct confirmation with the responsible agency.
- Certified record request: may require identity verification, fingerprinting, notarization, or a fee even where an informal online index is free.
Minimum research checklist for a location guide
Where relevant and publicly documented, an editor should check:
- official agency or court name;
- geographic jurisdiction and court level;
- record types covered and excluded;
- online portal URL and whether registration is required;
- search fields available to the public;
- cost, payment method, subscription, or per-page fees;
- mail and in-person request alternatives;
- identification, notarization, fingerprinting, or authorization requirements;
- official address, phone number, and public counter hours where relevant;
- published processing or turnaround guidance;
- restrictions for sealed, juvenile, expunged, nonpublic, or otherwise protected records;
- the distinction between index information and certified copies; and
- any official warning that the online system is incomplete or not a substitute for direct clerk verification.
Micro-step instructions
Readers often need more than a link. When the official user path is stable enough to document, our guide may describe a sequence such as choosing “Case Search,” selecting the court or county, accepting portal terms, choosing a party-name or case-number search, reviewing the result, and following the court’s instructions for copies.
We do not invent button names or pretend to have completed a transaction that we did not complete. Steps should correspond to the publicly observable workflow and should be revised when that workflow changes.
Manual link verification
Important outbound links should be opened and reviewed. A search-engine snippet, old cached page, or third-party directory is not enough. If the official source has moved, we prefer to locate the replacement through the agency’s current site rather than redirect readers to a commercial substitute.
Handling conflicting official information
Government sources can conflict. A clerk page may list a different fee from an older PDF; a state portal may describe broader coverage than a county page; office hours may differ across a directory and department page. When this happens, we consider publication dates, which office controls the process, whether a document has been superseded, and whether a direct confirmation is available.
If the conflict cannot be resolved confidently, the page should say so rather than hide uncertainty.
Dates, review labels, and freshness
A “last reviewed” or “last verified” date means the page received an editorial review as of that date. It does not mean every external database was republished that day. We prioritize updates when:
- a government URL breaks or redirects;
- an agency announces a new vendor or portal;
- a form or fee schedule changes;
- a law, rule, or access restriction changes;
- an office moves or materially changes service hours;
- readers report a reproducible error; or
- the article reaches a scheduled review point for a high-traffic or high-change topic.
Material corrections
We correct confirmed factual errors in our own content. Material changes can include an incorrect official source, wrong jurisdiction, obsolete fee, invalid form, misleading FCRA implication, or description that wrongly equates an arrest with a conviction. Minor grammar or formatting changes do not necessarily require a correction note.
Human dignity and contextual accuracy
Criminal-justice information concerns real people. Our purpose is to explain access to public systems, not to sensationalize allegations. We avoid unnecessary labels, inflammatory wording, and conclusions about a person’s character based solely on a public record. Where status matters, current court disposition is more informative than an isolated arrest or booking entry.
No fabricated localization
Location-specific details must come from an identifiable source or from direct review of the official user experience. We do not invent “local tips,” unofficial office practices, wait times, parking advice, processing shortcuts, or hidden procedures simply to make an article sound local.
Use of secondary sources
Reliable secondary sources may be useful for background, but procedural claims that can be verified through government material should normally cite or link the government source. Search rankings are not evidence of authority.
Commercial separation
Editorial content should distinguish between official sources and commercial services. Advertising or affiliate compensation does not determine what we call an official portal, how we describe a government procedure, or whether we publish a correction. Material connections should be disclosed in accordance with our Advertising & Affiliate Disclosure.
FCRA and eligibility decisions
Because public-record information can be used improperly in screening, relevant pages should direct readers to our FCRA & Responsible Use Notice. We do not present our editorial guides as consumer reports or as a compliance substitute for employment, housing, credit, insurance, or other regulated decisions.
Reader corrections are evidence, not automatic edits
We appreciate reader reports, but we still verify them. A correction supported by a current official source is more persuasive than an unsupported assertion. If a reader and an official source disagree, we normally follow the source unless there is evidence the official page is obsolete or incorrect.
What we do when we cannot verify something
We may omit the claim, qualify it, describe the uncertainty, or tell the reader which office can provide the definitive answer. Completeness is valuable, but not at the cost of inventing information.
Contact the editorial team
To report an error in a guide, email contact@criminal-record.org and include the criminal-record.org/ URL plus the current official source supporting the change.