Criminal Conduct

• A meritorious waiver [of the Bond Amendment criteria] may be granted, if appropriate, in cases involving individuals (1) who have been convicted of crimes and incarcerated for not less than one year, and (2) who have been discharged or dismissed from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions, and (3) who are determined to be mentally incompetent. When one of these conditions is present in a case, the adjudicator will proceed with the adjudication using the appropriate mitigation conditions as found in the 2005 Adjudicative Guideline, and DoD procedures for eligibility determinations. If an adjudicator determines a meritorious waiver is appropriate and the adjudicator would have arrived at a favorable decision but for the Bond Amendment disqualification, the adjudicator may grant the meritorious waiver.
• Meritorious waivers will be considered as ‘Exceptions’ to the 2005 Adjudicative Guidelines and will be annotated as a ‘Waiver’ in Joint Adjudication Management System (JAMS). Adjudicators will provide a detailed justification for the meritorious waiver in JAMS.
• If, after applying the appropriate mitigating factors listed in the 2005 Adjudicative Guidelines, the adjudicator determines that a meritorious waiver is not appropriate, the eligibility will be denied or revoked with a Statement of Reasons (SOR) which cites the Bond Amendment. The Department’s established administrative review procedures, including hearing and appeal processes, will be followed in all such cases.”
• Under the current delegations of adjudication authorities, a meritorious waiver may be granted during any stage of the adjudication or the applicable due process. If a Letter of Intent or SOR has been issued, the meritorious waiver decision will be made by the Director or Deputy Director of the DoD adjudication facility.  If a Letter of denial or Revocation has been issued by a CAF, the final meritorious waiver decision will be made by the Head of the PSAB of the employing Component, or the Director of DOHA for industry cases serviced by DOHA.

Personnel whose eligibility was previously denied or revoked under the Smith Amendment may only be reconsidered for eligibility under the above provisions if the original denial or revocations was based on a criminal conviction with incarceration for not less than one year, a discharge or dismissal from the Armed Forces under dishonorable condition, or a determination of mental incompetence; and the individual’s employer or government sponsor nominates him/her for a position requiring a security clearance.  Those personnel are not required to wait the mandatory one year for reconsideration.

The rules of reciprocity apply for personnel who transfer from one DoD organization or Federal agency to another.  However, for transfer cases where the subject was adjudicated under an exception, re-adjudication for consideration of Don Amendment disqualifiers is appropriate.

Crimes of Domestic Violence

The Lautenberg Amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968 makes it a felony for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of firearms or ammunition to any person whom she or she knows or has reasonable cause to believe has been convicted of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence." It also makes it a felony for any person so convicted to ship, transport, or possess any firearm or ammunition in, or affecting, interstate or foreign commerce.

This law has the effect of prohibiting the possession of firearms or ammunition by individuals who have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.28  There is no exemption for military, law enforcement, or security personnel, so this amendment has a potentially significant impact on several categories of cleared personnel who must carry a firearm during the course of their job.

This amendment, which became effective on September 30, 1996, states that:

• “It shall be unlawful for any person … who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, to ship or transport …, or possess …, any firearm or ammunition, or to receive any firearm or ammunition.”
• “It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person … has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.”

The law defines the “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” as a crime that is a misdemeanor under either federal or state law and involves the use or attempted use of physical force or the threatened use of a deadly weapon against a person with whom the offender has a family or family-like relationship. It is domestic violence when the offender is the current spouse, former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, shares a common child with the victim, someone who is now cohabitating or used to cohabit as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or someone similarly situated as a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim.

To qualify as a conviction under the Lautenberg Amendment, the offender must have been represented by legal counsel and been tried by jury and found guilty, or knowingly and intelligently waived these rights. The Lautenberg Amendment does not apply if the alleged offender pled no contest (nolo contendere), if there is any form of deferred or other alternative disposition, if the conviction has been expunged or set aside, or if the offender has been pardoned.

DoD has issued policy guidance for the implementation of this law as the military justice system does not categorize crimes as misdemeanors or felonies.29  According to DoD policy, conviction by general or special court-martial of a crime that otherwise meets the definition of misdemeanor domestic violence is covered under the Lautenberg Amendment. Although the statutory language only speaks to misdemeanor convictions, the firearm possession rules also apply to felony convictions and foreign convictions as a matter of DoD policy. Offenses punished by summary court-martial, imposition of nonjudicial punishment (Article 15, UCMJ or Captain’s Mast) are not covered. Major weapons systems such as tanks, crew-served weapons, and aircraft are excluded from the definition of firearms and ammunition.

The policy directs each DoD component to implement a program to inform its personnel with access to firearms or ammunition of the domestic violence amendment to the Gun Control Act and its potential consequences. Individuals who have a qualifying conviction under the Lautenberg Amendment are not eligible for employment in any position that requires access to or use of firearms.

The final DoD rules require use of the DD Form 2760, December 2002, if commands require someone to inform them of whether they have had such a conviction or if commanding officers require personnel to answer questions or provide information about whether they have been convicted of a qualifying offense. The form contains "use immunity" provisions, personally approved by the Secretary of Defense as a general court-martial convening authority and the U.S. Attorney General, to prevent information provided by service members from being used against them in a court-martial or Federal prosecution for violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9).

The final DoD rules, like the statute, do not include any exception for military members to possess firearms or ammunition for any reason, including mandatory annual firearm qualification or the performance of military duties. The services were also directed by DoD to promulgate regulations governing permanent adverse personnel actions, including administrative discharge that may be initiated for service members who have a qualifying conviction.

Clean Criminal Record Does Not Mean
Absence of Criminal Behavior

Checks of criminal records identify only the tip of the iceberg of criminal activity. A clean record indicates only that there are no records of criminal conduct in the places checked. The absence of information in criminal record files should not be viewed as positive evidence of reliability or trustworthiness.

Most crimes are not reported to the police. Most reported crimes do not lead to arrest, and many arrested persons are not prosecuted and convicted. Even for those who are prosecuted and convicted, the criminal records are often incomplete or missing. As a result, the chances are small that an individual who has committed a single crime will have a criminal record. This suggests that the person who has a minor criminal record may not be very different from a person who has no criminal record at all. The more crimes a person has committed, the greater the odds of that person having a record.

Much past criminal behavior is likely to be discovered only by self-admission, interviews with references or developed sources, or polygraph examination. This behavior should be evaluated under the adjudication guidelines even though there may be no criminal record.

Most Crimes Are Not Reported

The 2001 National Crime Victimization Survey found that only 39.9% of all crime is reported to police. Broken down by type of crime, 48.9% of personal or violent victimizations and 37% of all property crimes were reported. Robbery resulting in bodily harm was the most often reported violent crime (81.6%), while attempted purse snatching was the least often reported (27.2%). Of property crimes, motor vehicle theft was most commonly reported to police (94.2%) and personal theft of items valued at less than $50 was the least likely to be reported (15.2%). The reason most often stated for NOT reporting crime to police is that it was a "private or personal matter."7  These statistics emphasize the importance of checking all sources of possible criminal information and not relying solely on criminal record data.

Even fewer crimes against businesses are reported to police. For example, shoplifting and theft by retail employees are very common, but even those offenders who are caught are often not reported to police. Most businesses handle these and other economic crimes such as fraud and minor embezzlement internally (through job termination, restitution, demotion), through civil litigation, or by writing them off as a cost of doing business.

Victimless crimes, such as illegal drug use and underage drinking, where all parties involved are willing participants, are rarely reported.

Most Reported Crimes Do Not Lead to Arrest

The FBI's annual report on crime in the United States reports that only 20% of Crime Index offenses (the most serious offenses) reported during 2002  were "cleared," which in most cases means the alleged offender was arrested and turned over to the court for prosecution. The clearance rate was 46.8% for violent crimes and 16.5% for property crimes. 8

If only 39.9% of crimes are reported and only 20% of those reported lead to arrests, this suggests that the chances of a crime leading to arrest are only about 8%. Owing to significant differences in procedures between the FBI reporting and the National Crime Victimization Survey, this 8% figure is only a very rough approximation.

Many Arrested Persons Are Not
Prosecuted or Convicted

For persons arrested by the police on felony charges, about 27% are typically released due to insufficient evidence or legal technicalities unrelated to guilt or innocence. About 73% are prosecuted. Of those prosecuted, 11% are acquitted and 89% are convicted. 9

To avoid the cost and uncertainties of a trial, many prosecuted cases are plea-bargained down to conviction for a misdemeanor rather than a felony, which generally involves far less serious consequences for the defendant. In 2002, 74.5% of persons arrested and prosecuted for a felony crime received prison sentences.10  Thus, if 73% of arrestees are prosecuted and 74.5% of those are sentenced to prison, approximately 55% of persons arrested on felony charges actually spend any time in a correctional institution. (Due to differences in reporting procedures from the various agencies noted in the Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 55% is only a rough estimate.)

Records of cases that are dismissed without prosecution or that are plea-bargained may be incomplete or misleading. When evaluating criminal conduct, the individual's behavior is the primary consideration, not whether the individual was prosecuted or convicted. If there is good reason to believe the person committed a felony but plea-bargained down to a misdemeanor, it should be adjudicated as a felony. Investigators need to provide adjudicators with the information required to make this judgment.

Criminal Records Are Often Incomplete

The quality of criminal records leaves much to be desired. Although many efforts are under way to automate and centralize criminal records, it will be years before a single check of criminal records at the national level provides reasonably complete coverage.

The National Agency Check (NAC), which includes a check of FBI criminal records, is normally the first step in the investigative process. For the following reasons, the FBI records contain only a fraction of the data on criminal offenses available through state and other local agencies:

• As a general rule, only felonies and serious misdemeanors are recorded in FBI files.

• Juvenile arrest records are not normally forwarded to the FBI, and juvenile crime represents a large part of the criminal history of military enlistees.

• Many adult arrest records are not forwarded to the FBI for a variety of reasons that differ from state to state and from one police department to another. One common reason is that many reports received by the states from their local jurisdictions are not complete enough to meet requirements for inclusion in the FBI data base.

There is also considerable slippage at the local and state level; that is, most centralized state files are also quite incomplete. The most common failing is lack of reporting on the disposition of those who have been arrested. Only about half of all arrests lead to conviction. Many who are arrested, fingerprinted, and reported to the state's central criminal records repository are subsequently not charged with a crime, are charged but not prosecuted, or are prosecuted unsuccessfully, and these subsequent actions are often not reported to the state repository.

Across the nation, including the FBI's Identification Division and state repositories, the disposition of cases during the past five years is reported for about 80% of reported arrests. The figures are lower when arrests older than five years are considered. 11

Another weakness is that expunging, setting aside, or pardoning felony convictions may not be recorded in the state repository, or it may result in the record of the felony conviction being removed from the file. 12

Juvenile Records

Juvenile records are becoming increasingly available to investigators. Until recently, confidentiality of juvenile record systems was ensured de facto because the systems were so primitive that the information could not be retrieved anyway. Currently, attention is focused on reducing crime by identifying career criminals and keeping them off the streets with longer sentences. This increases the pressure for judges, parole boards and others to have prompt access to accurate juvenile records.

Records of juvenile crimes are sometimes maintained in separate systems that, in most states, are far less complete, accurate, and automated than records of adult criminals. Different states have different procedures for sealing, expunging, or limiting access to juvenile records. Efforts are under way in many states to improve the quality and retrievability of these records, and past practices of restricted access to juvenile records are being reviewed. 13

Shoplifting, Employee Theft
Traffic Offenses

Shoplifting, theft by employees, and serious traffic offenses are common crimes that often do not show up in a criminal records check. They do not show up either because the victims have not pursued them through the criminal records system or because the crimes were committed outside the subject's home area where the local agency checks are conducted. Because an individual's participation in such crimes is so frequently missed by a criminal records check, investigators should ask about such offenses during subject and reference interviews.

Shoplifting

According to the 2004 National Retail Security Survey, shoplifting is the most frequent crime against retailers. It cost U.S. retailers over $10 billion in 2004 alone.14  Many stores are reluctant to pursue criminal prosecution of shoplifters because prosecution requires their manager and security personnel to spend so much time in court. Cases most likely to be prosecuted are when high-value merchandise is involved, the individual is believed to be a repeat offender, or believed to be a member of a criminal gang.

Alternative procedures for dealing with shoplifters are more common than prosecution. In almost all states, store owners themselves can now impose civil fines on shoplifters. The fines range from $40 to three times "actual damages," depending on the state. Without ever going into the criminal court system, the store owner may impose the fine and turn over collection to a lawyer or collection agency. In the case of a juvenile, the store owner may collect from the shoplifter's parent. If the fine is not paid, the store owner can then sue in civil court.15  If a teenager is involved, a store may simply hold the individual in the security office while calling the parents.

Since most people who have been apprehended for shoplifting will not be identified in a criminal records check, it is advisable for investigators to ask specifically about such offenses when conducting interviews. This information is likely to come only from self-disclosure in a subject interview or polygraph examination or from questions asked during reference or employment interviews.

Most shoplifters are from the middle class, not from the lowest socioeconomic groups. This is not a crime motivated largely by economic need. A majority of shoplifters have on them the cash or credit cards needed to pay for the stolen items.16  In fact, 59% of shoplifters report that they buy some merchandise at the same time they are stealing.17  Although it is a minor offense, shoplifting by an adult not in desperate need reveals important information about an individual's trustworthiness and reliability.

Employee Theft

The impression of security personnel and retail store managers is that employee theft outranks shoplifting as a source of loss to retail merchants. Employee theft is the number one cause of inventory shrinkage (lost revenue from missing inventory) for retailers nationwide, with the average loss per incident approaching $1200. In 2004, retailers lost almost $15 billion to employee theft. 14

Most researchers agree that between 50% and 75% of retail employees steal from their employers, in one form or another, but in this context "stealing" includes misuse of the employee discount, selling merchandise to friends at a discount, and reporting incorrect hours worked. In many cases, the items taken have minimal value. Many rationalize their actions as not stealing. In many cases, misuse of the employee discount may be beneficial to the store, as merchandise is still sold at a profit and the alternative may be no sale at all.

In a survey of 500 retail employees nationwide in the late 1990s, 13% admitted stealing from their employer and another 66% admitted that they would steal if they saw others doing so with no consequences. Of the 13% who admitted stealing, 49% did so out of greed, 43% reported stealing to "get even" for some perceived injustice, and 8% reportedly stole out of need.18  Research has shown that rates of employee theft have continued to rise since the late 1970s. This is most true in periods of economic difficulty or when employees feel as if they are being unfairly compensated. 19

For employee theft, like shoplifting, a check of criminal records is a very imperfect source of information on past transgressions. In most cases, the employee is simply terminated. Some companies prefer to pursue restitution and penalties in civil court rather than in a criminal case. Investigators are likely to obtain information only through self-disclosure during the subject interview, employment or reference interviews, or polygraph examination.

Traffic Offenses

It is often said that the way people drive is a reflection of their personalities. Various types of high-risk behavior often appear together as part of a general personality syndrome. Persons arrested for high-risk driving (speeding, unsafe lane changes, tailgating, driving under the influence, etc.) are more likely than others to abuse alcohol, use drugs, and engage in high-risk sexual behavior, fighting, stealing, and vandalism. People involved in auto crashes are more likely than others to have problems controlling hostility and anger, have difficulty with authority figures, and be more impulsive and immature. 20

A record of two or more moving violations during the past three years, or three or more during the past five years, suggests the possible existence of relevant derogatory information in other issue areas. If other derogatory information is available, all of the derogatory information should be evaluated together under Personal Conduct, Pattern of Dishonest, Unreliable, Rule-Breaking Behavior.

Some traffic offenses originate as arrests for driving under the influence but are then plea-bargained down to a lesser offense to avoid the cost of trial. When identified for what they are, such an offense should be evaluated as a DUI under Alcohol Consumption or Drug Involvement, as appropriate.

Mitigating Conditions

Extract from the Guideline

(a) so much time has elapsed since the criminal
behavior happened, or it happened under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;

(b) the person was pressured or coerced into committing the act and those pressures are no longer present in the person's life;

(c) evidence that the person did not commit the
offense;

(d) there is evidence of successful rehabilitation; including but not limited to the passage of time
without recurrence of criminal activity, remorse or restitution, job training or higher education, good employment record, or constructive community involvement.

____________

Discussion of Guideline

Mitigating circumstances that might justify approval despite a criminal record include:

• Time Elapsed:  There is no fixed threshold for how much time must have elapsed before a person with a criminal record can be approved. It depends upon a combination of factors that are discussed below under recency of the criminal behavior, whether it was an isolated incident, and unique circumstances.
• Pressured or Coerced: Special consideration may be appropriate if an individual commits a crime under duress, such as threats to one's family. This mitigation would not apply, however, if the person's own behavior was responsible for provoking the threats, for example, threats made in an effort to collect gambling debts.
• Exculpatory Evidence: As discussed under the disqualifying factors, this mitigation requires positive evidence of innocence, not simply a decision not to prosecute or failure to convict due to a legal technicality. The burden of proof is different in the courtroom than in the personnel security system, where no one has a right to a clearance.
• Successful Rehabilitation: There is no fixed threshold for how much time must elapse before a person can be considered "rehabilitated." It depends in large measure on the person's behavior since the crime was committed. Relevant behaviors are not limited to those listed in the guideline. Rehabilitation can also be shown by a significant change in life style and in attitudes toward social responsibility, including, for example, religious conversion.

When evaluating mitigating conditions, adjudicators should consider age at time of offense, nature and circumstances of the offense, and amount of time elapsed since the offense. People do change, but as a general rule adjudicators should require positive evidence of change, not simply the passage of time. Evidence of change might be a change in associates and lifestyle, repayment or remorse, a pattern of responsible behavior, or results of detailed psychological evaluation. Continuing evidence of any form of antisocial, irresponsible, violent or high-risk behavior may contribute to a decision against approval despite the passage of time since the criminal offense.

Crime Was Not Recent

Passage of time since committing a criminal offense may be a mitigating factor that allows approval. The question is, how much time needs to elapse before it is reasonable to conclude that a person has demonstrated sufficient reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment to outweigh a prior criminal offense? This varies depending, in part, on the seriousness and circumstances of the offense (misdemeanor vs. felony), age at the time of the offense, and evidence of positive change in attitudes or lifestyle since the offense was committed.

At least seven states have passed statutes that recognize the small risk of recidivism by offenders with old criminal history records and no recent offenses. These statutes permit "old" records to be sealed or purged, either automatically through administrative action or selectively through court petition. These statutes generally apply to convictions that are either 5 or 10 years old with no subsequent offenses.21  On the other hand, courts in about 15 states have addressed the question of whether the passage of time alone can deprive the public of its right to access to criminal records; in most cases, they have determined that it cannot. 22

Crime Was an Isolated Incident

Many people commit an occasional dishonest act while continuing to see themselves as law-abiding, honest citizens. They make an impulsive decision, have an uncharacteristic lapse of judgment, or use a convenient rationalization -- that everyone is doing it, they are only taking what they deserve, or it is not harming anyone.

Criminologists have long believed that an overwhelming majority of people have committed at least one crime without detection, and a substantial proportion have broken the law more than once.23  An often-cited 1947 study, entitled Our Law-Abiding Lawbreakers, found that 99% of respondents admitted committing at least one offense from a list of 49 such offenses that carried sentences of not less than one year. None of the respondents had been arrested or classified as a criminal. 24

Offenses may take various forms. Many offenses, such as malicious mischief, disorderly conduct, bribery, perjury, indecency, or assault, may result from an uncharacteristic lapse in judgment or discretion, often during one's youth.

Pilfering, such as taking ashtrays or towels from a hotel room, is common. Security experts estimate that the hotel industry loses more than $100 million each year to stolen towels, ashtrays, irons, glassware and bibles. 25

It may be a financial offense such as padding an insurance claim or failing to report income on an income tax return. After the Internal Revenue Service first required banks and corporations to report all interest and dividend payments to individuals so that these payments could be matched against what the recipients report, the amount of interest and dividends reported on individual tax returns increased by 45%.26  When the IRS first began in 1988 to require that names and Social Security numbers of all dependents be entered on tax returns, seven million bogus dependents vanished from the tax rolls. 27

In some cases, the individual may be unaware the action is illegal -- for example, failure to pay required Social Security and unemployment compensation insurance for a maid or regular baby-sitter.

Unique Circumstances Not Likely to Recur

Transitory conditions such as severe provocation or desperate financial need to pay a medical bill may lead an otherwise honest person to suffer a lapse in judgment and commit a crime. If the offense is explained by extenuating circumstances that are unlikely to recur, and if the whole-person evaluation is favorable, this may be a mitigating factor.

Reference Materials

See Table of Contents for links to a Glossary of Legal Terms and an Index to Abbreviations Used in Criminal Records.

Footnotes

1. Hollinger, R.C. (1989). Dishonesty in the workplace: A manager's guide to preventing employee theft (pp. 10-11). Park Ridge, IL: London House Press.

2. Baker, M., & Westin, A. (1987). Employer perceptions of workplace crime. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice.

3. Langan, P.A., & Levin, D.J. (2002). Bureau of Justice Statistics special report: Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Retrieved September 2003 from the Bureau of Justice Statistics web site: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/rpr94.htm

4. Snyder, H.N., & Sickmund, M. (1999). Juvenile offenders and victims: 1999 national report. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Retrieved September 2003 from: http://www.ncjrs.org/html/ojjdp/nationalreport99/toc.html

6. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (n.d.). Drugs and crime facts: Drug use and crime. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. Retrieved September 2003 from: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/duc.htm

7. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2001). Nature and distribution of known offenses. In Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 2001. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

8. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (n.d.). Offenses known to police and cleared by arrest. In Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics Online. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. Retrieved July 2005 from: http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t420.pdf

9. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (n.d.). Defendants disposed of in U.S. District Courts. In Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics Online. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. Retrieved July 2005 from: http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t522.pdf

10. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (n.d.). Federal offenders sentenced to incarceration in U.S. District Courts. In Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics Online. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. Retrieved July 2005 from: http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t520.pdf

5. Ge, X., Donnellan, M.B., & Wenk, E. (2001). The development of persistent criminal offending in males. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28(6), 731-755.

13. Belair, R.R. (1990). The future availability of juvenile records. In Proceedings of the Bureau of Justice Statistics/SEARCH Conference on Juvenile and Adult Records: One System, One Record? Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

11. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2001). Survey of state criminal history information systems. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Retrieved September 2003 from: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/sschis01.htm

12. SEARCH. (1985). Criminal justice information policy: Data quality of criminal history records. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

14. Hollinger, R.C., & Langton, M.A. (2005). 2004 National retail security survey: Final report. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Department of Criminology, Law and Society.

15. Woo, J. (1992, September 9). Most states now have laws permitting stores to impose civil fines on shoplifters. The Wall Street Journal, p. B1.

17. Shoplifters Anonymous. (n.d.). Some facts about shoplifters. Retrieved September 2003 from the Shoplifters Anonymous web site: http://www.shopliftersanonymous.com/Facts.htm

16. Baumer, T.L., & Rosenbaum, D.P. (1984). Combating retail theft: Programs and strategies (Chapters 2 and 3). Boston: Butterworth.

18. Kessler, International. (1999). Study shows 79% of employees steal from their employer. Retrieved April 20 2010, from http://www.investigation.com/press/press4.htm

19. Geller, A. (2002). Worker thefts on rise. Retrieved September 2003 from: http://www.mcintron.com/Worker_Theft.pdf

20. COMSIS Corporation. (1995). Understanding youthful risk taking and driving (DOT HS 808 318). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

21. Snyder, J.M. (1988). The private employer and criminal history records in Bureau of Justice Statistics (1988). Open vs. confidential records, conference proceedings (p. 57) (NCJ-113560). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

22. Kirtley, J.E. (1988). Media access to criminal history records. In Bureau of Justice Statistics (1988). Open vs. confidential records, conference proceedings (NCJ-113560). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

23. Pursley, R.D. (1984). Introduction to criminal justice (p. 90) (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan.

24. Wallerstein, J., & Wyle, C.J. (1947). Our law-abiding lawbreakers. Probation, 25, 107-112.

25. Loftus, M. (1997, July 14). Gone: One TV. US News & World Report, 123(2), 61(1).

26. The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice. (1967). Task force report: Crime and its impact: An assessment (p. 103). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

27. McNamee, M. (1996, April 8). A flat tax might make Apr. 15 trickier. Newsweek, p. 135.

28. 18 U.S.C. 921, 922, and 923.

29. Chu, D.S. (2002, November 27). Department of Defense Policy for Implementation of Domestic Violence Misdemeanor Amendment to the Gun Control Act for DoD Civilian Personnel. Washington, DC: Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness.