Michigan Background Checks: ICHAT, Fingerprints, and Employment Rules

This article is provided for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal, financial, or tax advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading it. Laws, regulations, official guidance, and related information vary by jurisdiction, change frequently, and may have changed or become outdated since publication. Always verify current information with authoritative sources and consult a qualified professional about your specific circumstances. The author and publisher assume no liability for actions taken based on this information.

A Michigan background check can mean several different searches. The most accessible is a public, name-based Michigan criminal history search through ICHAT. Fingerprint checks, court records, regulated-workforce screening, and commercial employment reports serve different purposes and can return different information.

The useful starting question is therefore not simply whether a background check was completed, but which system was searched, how identity was matched, and what the requesting organization was legally authorized to receive.

ICHAT is Michigan’s public name-based search

The Michigan State Police Criminal Justice Information Center maintains ICHAT for public searches of Michigan criminal history record information. A search uses identifying information rather than fingerprints, which creates a possibility that people with similar names or birth information can be confused.

Michigan State Police states that felonies and serious misdemeanors punishable by more than 93 days are required to be reported to the state repository by law-enforcement agencies, prosecutors, and courts across Michigan’s 83 counties. ICHAT can show public information about convictions and pending criminal cases held in that repository.

An ICHAT result is narrower than a national background check. It does not include federal or tribal records, records from other states, juvenile records, traffic records, local misdemeanors, warrant information, or suppressed records.

Michigan currently identifies a $10 charge for each ICHAT search. The service provides public record information; it does not certify that the person has no record in every court or database.

Fingerprint checks answer a different identity question

A fingerprint-based search compares biometric information rather than relying only on a name and date of birth. Michigan State Police performs fingerprint checks when a state or federal statute, executive order, or rule authorizes or requires that search.

For employment or licensing checks required by law, the requesting employer or licensing agency supplies an RI-030 Livescan Fingerprint Background Check Request form. An approved Livescan agency collects the fingerprints and applicable state, FBI, and service fees, and the response goes to the organization identified on the request.

A personal fingerprint record review is a separate route. Michigan State Police currently lists a $30 processing fee and explains that the resulting record is sent to the person who was fingerprinted.

The distinction matters because a fingerprint personal-record review can include public and nonpublic Michigan history associated with those fingerprints, while ICHAT displays only publicly available information from its name-based system.

Michigan defines criminal history record information broadly

Michigan Compiled Laws section 28.241a defines criminal history record information to include identifying data and information about misdemeanor arrests and convictions and felony arrests and convictions. That statutory definition describes what the state repository can hold; it does not mean every item is publicly displayed through ICHAT.

Public access, authorized agency access, and a person’s own fingerprint review are separate access levels. A record may exist in the repository yet be unavailable through a public name search because it is suppressed, nonpublic, or outside ICHAT’s disclosed scope.

Set-aside and correction issues can change what appears

Michigan’s set-aside laws can remove eligible convictions from public criminal-history disclosure. Michigan State Police distinguishes between checking public information through ICHAT, obtaining a fuller fingerprint-based personal record, and consulting the court of conviction.

A missing ICHAT entry does not prove that no criminal-justice record ever existed, and an entry does not by itself explain every later court action. Identity, disposition, suppression, and set-aside status can affect the available result.

Some Michigan jobs use specialized screening systems

Michigan’s Workforce Background Check program provides state and federal fingerprint-based checks for specified workers and contractors who have direct access to patients, residents, property, financial information, medical records, or other sensitive information in covered care settings.

Covered settings include nursing homes, hospices, county medical care facilities, certain home health agencies, swing-bed hospitals, psychiatric hospitals, adult foster care, and homes for the aged. This regulated process is not interchangeable with a member of the public purchasing an ICHAT result.

Michigan limits certain employment inquiries

Under Michigan Compiled Laws section 37.2205a, an employer, employment agency, or labor organization other than a state or local law-enforcement agency generally may not request, make, or maintain a record concerning a misdemeanor arrest, detention, or disposition that did not result in conviction.

The rule is limited: it addresses specified nonconviction misdemeanor information and does not create a blanket ban on criminal background checks. Other laws can require screening for particular positions or regulate how particular records are evaluated.

Federal consumer-report law may add employment protections

When an employer uses a consumer reporting agency to obtain a background report for employment, the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act creates a separate compliance layer. Among other conditions, 15 U.S.C. section 1681b generally requires a clear written disclosure and the person’s written authorization before procurement.

Before taking adverse action based wholly or partly on the consumer report, the employer generally must provide a copy of the report and a written summary of consumer rights. Those federal duties concern third-party consumer reports, not every direct search of a public government database.

Federal employment-discrimination law also remains relevant. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission explains that treating comparable criminal histories differently because of race or national origin can violate Title VII, and a neutral exclusion policy can create disparate-impact issues when it is not job related and consistent with business necessity.

These federal layers are discussed more broadly in TheFirstFile’s planned guide to background checks. Michigan-specific systems still determine what the state repository provides and which specialized checks apply.

Reading a result requires attention to scope

A background-check result is a report from a defined source at a particular time, not a universal certificate about a person. A useful reading separates identity matching, geographic coverage, record type, access level, and disposition.

ICHAT offers convenient access to public Michigan criminal history, fingerprint screening provides a stronger identity match for authorized purposes, and court or federal records can answer questions outside ICHAT’s scope. Understanding those boundaries prevents a narrow search from being mistaken for a complete national history.

Sources

• Michigan State Police criminal history records overview
• Michigan State Police fingerprint record-search procedures
• Michigan Compiled Laws section 28.241a
• Michigan Compiled Laws section 37.2205a
• Michigan State Police: Find out what remains on your record
• Michigan LARA Workforce Background Check program
• 15 U.S.C. section 1681b: Permissible purposes of consumer reports
• EEOC enforcement guidance on arrest and conviction records