Arrest Records vs. Convictions: Background Checks, Employers, Housing

On a background check, an arrest record and a conviction look similar but mean very different things. An arrest record shows that police took someone into custody or that charges were filed; a conviction shows that a court found the person guilty or accepted a guilty plea. That distinction drives almost everything else, including how long each item can appear on a report, what an employer or landlord can do with it, and what rights you have to push back. The short version of arrest records vs. convictions on background checks: arrests without a conviction generally drop off after seven years under federal law and carry limited weight in hiring decisions, while convictions can be reported indefinitely and can be used against you if the offense is job-related.

What an Arrest Record Actually Shows

An arrest record documents an allegation. Law enforcement took someone into custody or prosecutors filed charges. Nothing about that establishes guilt. On a background report, an arrest entry typically lists the date, the charges filed, and the current status of the case.

A large share of arrests never end in a conviction. Charges get dropped, cases get dismissed, or prosecutors decline to move forward. The trouble is that the arrest often remains visible even after the case ends in the applicant’s favor, and the disposition line uses language most people don’t recognize. The common non-conviction outcomes include:

Nolle prosequi: The prosecutor decided not to pursue the case. It puts things back roughly as if charges were never filed, though in most situations the government retains the option to refile.
Dismissed without prejudice: A judge or prosecutor ended the case, but the charges could be refiled later.
Dismissed with prejudice: The case was permanently dismissed and cannot be refiled. This often happens after someone completes a diversion program.
Acquitted: A court found the defendant not guilty. Double jeopardy protections prevent the government from trying the case again.
Pretrial diversion completed: The person completed a program such as community service or counseling, and the charges were dropped. The original arrest and charge may still appear unless you pursue expungement.

None of these outcomes are convictions. All of them can still show up on a report. That mismatch is why federal and state laws increasingly restrict what can be done with arrest-only information.

What Counts as a Conviction

A conviction means the case reached a definitive conclusion. The person pleaded guilty, pleaded no contest, or was found guilty at trial. Background reports classify convictions as felonies (offenses punishable by more than one year of incarceration) or misdemeanors (offenses punishable by one year or less).

One category trips people up: deferred adjudication. In a deferred adjudication arrangement, you typically plead guilty or no contest, but the court delays entering a conviction while you complete conditions. Finish the program and the case gets dismissed. The plea and case history often remain on your record anyway, and they can appear on background checks. Whether that counts as a conviction depends on your state. In some states a completed deferred adjudication is not a conviction for employment purposes; in others, the guilty plea itself creates a reportable record. If you went through deferred adjudication, checking your state’s rules and pursuing sealing or expungement where available is worth the effort.

How Long Each One Can Appear on a Background Check

The Fair Credit Reporting Act sets the federal ceiling. Consumer reporting agencies cannot include arrest records more than seven years old if those arrests did not lead to a conviction. The same seven-year limit applies to other adverse items such as civil judgments.¹

Convictions are treated differently. The statute carves them out of the seven-year restriction entirely, so a conviction from any point in your past can appear on a standard background report with no time limit.¹

There is one wrinkle for higher-paying jobs. For positions with an annual salary of $75,000 or more, the seven-year cap on non-conviction records can be waived, allowing the reporting agency to reach further back.¹ That figure sits in the statute unchanged since it was enacted, so it captures a wider range of positions today than when Congress wrote it.

State Laws That Go Further

The federal rules are a floor. Many states and cities have added protections that go further, and they generally fall into two categories: limits on what appears on the report at all, and limits on what employers can do with what does appear.

A growing number of states flatly prohibit employers from considering arrest records that did not result in a conviction. California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Hawaii, and roughly a dozen others bar employers from asking about or acting on non-conviction records during hiring. In those states, an arrest that was dismissed, dropped, or ended in acquittal generally cannot be held against you.

Some states also impose reporting time limits that are tighter than the federal seven-year rule. A handful apply a seven-year cap to convictions as well as arrests, so even a conviction drops off the report after enough time passes. The result is a patchwork: the same record might be visible in one state and invisible in another. Employers operating across state lines generally have to follow the rules of the state where the applicant lives or works, which is usually the more protective standard.

What Employers Can Legally Do With Each Type of Record

Even where a record is legally reportable, employers face limits on how they use it. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has said that an arrest record, standing alone, cannot be the basis for denying someone a job. An arrest is not proof that a crime occurred, and blanket exclusions based on arrests are not job-related or consistent with business necessity.²

An employer can look into the conduct underlying an arrest, meaning what allegedly happened rather than the bare fact of the arrest, if that conduct would make someone unfit for the specific position. That requires an actual analysis, not an automatic rejection.

For convictions, the EEOC directs employers to consider three factors before using a conviction to deny employment:

The nature and seriousness of the offense. A fraud conviction is more relevant to a financial position than to a warehouse job.
How much time has passed. A 15-year-old conviction carries less weight than a recent one.
The nature of the job. The conviction should have some relationship to the duties and responsibilities of the position.

The EEOC also expects employers to offer an individualized assessment, giving applicants a chance to explain the circumstances, present evidence of rehabilitation, or point out inaccuracies in the record.² An automatic policy that rejects anyone with a felony conviction, regardless of what it was or when it happened, is the kind of blanket exclusion the EEOC considers problematic under Title VII.

How the Rules Shift in Housing

Background checks are equally common in rental applications, and the rules there differ. HUD has taken the position that housing providers may violate the Fair Housing Act if they deny housing based on arrest records that did not lead to a conviction. An arrest alone is not evidence that illegal activity occurred, and using it to reject a tenant can amount to discrimination, particularly given how arrest rates fall along racial and ethnic lines.

For convictions, landlords have more latitude, but blanket policies rejecting all applicants with any criminal history carry legal risk. HUD’s guidance pushes housing providers toward the same individualized analysis the EEOC expects of employers: the nature of the offense, how long ago it happened, and whether it bears on the person’s suitability as a tenant. Some local jurisdictions go further and restrict landlords from considering convictions older than a set number of years, or require them to wait until after making a conditional offer before checking criminal history.

When the Record Is Wrong, Expunged, or Sealed

Background reports are not always accurate. Records get attached to the wrong person, dismissed charges appear as open cases, and records that should have been removed resurface in private databases. The FCRA gives you the right to dispute an error directly with the reporting agency.

Once the agency receives your dispute, it has 30 days to reinvestigate at no cost to you. If you send additional relevant information during that window, the deadline can extend by up to 15 more days. If the disputed information cannot be verified, the agency must delete it.³ The company that furnished the information also has to investigate on its side; if it cannot verify the data, the reporting agency must stop including it.⁴

When a reporting agency willfully ignores these requirements, federal law provides real teeth. You can recover actual damages or statutory damages between $100 and $1,000, plus punitive damages and attorney’s fees.⁵ File disputes in writing and keep copies of everything you send.

Expungement and sealing are different remedies, though the terms often get used interchangeably. Expungement destroys or permanently isolates the record, so on paper it is as if the arrest or conviction never happened. Sealing restricts access, keeping the record hidden from the general public, employers, and landlords, while leaving it visible to law enforcement and certain government agencies. Either way, once a court grants the order, the record should stop appearing on standard background checks.

The gap between “should” and “does” is where problems arise. Court clerks usually update their records within days, and state agencies generally follow within 30 days. Private background check companies operate on a different timeline. They pull records from public databases in periodic sweeps, and their data can lag six months to a year behind court records. Some databases may never reflect the change unless someone forces the issue.

If you have an expungement or sealing order and the record still appears, dispute it with the reporting agency and send a copy of the court order with your dispute. The agency has to update its records, and continued reporting of an expunged or sealed record after being notified is the kind of willful noncompliance that triggers statutory damages under the FCRA.³

1
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 15 U.S.C. 1681c – Requirements Relating to Information Contained in Consumer Reports
2
EEOC. Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions
3
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 15 U.S.C. 1681i – Procedure in Case of Disputed Accuracy
4
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The Law Requires Companies to Delete Disputed Unverified Information from Consumer Reports
5
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 15 U.S. Code 1681n – Civil Liability for Willful Noncompliance