IL · state guide

Illinois background screening law

How the courts here are organized

Illinois has one court of original jurisdiction and it is organized by circuit, not by county. The Judiciary states it plainly: "In Illinois, the circuit court is the court of original jurisdiction. There are 25 judicial circuits in the state, of which seven are single county circuits (Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry, St. Clair and Will). and the remaining eighteen circuits comprise as few as two and as many as twelve counties each." There are 102 counties and 25 circuits, so a circuit is usually a group of counties and a county is usually a subdivision of a circuit.

The court is administered by a chief judge and staffed by two kinds of judge. "Each circuit is administered by a chief judge who is elected by vote of the circuit court judges of that circuit." And: "There are two types of judges in the circuit court: circuit judges and associate judges. Circuit judges are elected for a six-year term ... Associate judges are appointed by circuit judges of that circuit, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 39, for four-year terms." The circuit court's jurisdiction is general: "Except for redistricting of the general assembly and ruling on the ability of the governor to serve or resume office, the circuit court has jurisdiction for all matters properly brought before it. The circuit court shares jurisdiction with the Supreme Court to hear cases relating to revenue, mandamus, prohibition, and habeas corpus."

The records, however, are kept by county. "In each county, voters elect a circuit clerk for a four-year term. Circuit clerks, with help from deputy clerks hired by the circuit clerk, attend sessions of the court, preserve court files and documents, maintain complete records of all cases, and maintain records of money received and disbursed related to these cases." The clerk is a county officer, elected by county voters, holding that county's court files. That is why an Illinois search runs county by county even though the court is organized by circuit, and why a circuit that spans several counties does not give a single place to look.

The same structure decides what the state repository can hold. Under 20 ILCS 2630/2.1 the reporting duty is distributed across the bodies that touch each event: policing bodies furnish fingerprints, charges and descriptions daily; the State's Attorney of each county reports charges filed and charges not filed; and "The clerk of the circuit court of each county shall furnish the Illinois State Police, in the form and manner required by the Supreme Court, with all final dispositions of cases", within the general deadline that all of it be reported "within 30 days of the criminal history event". A disposition that the county clerk does not forward to the State Police is a disposition the state record will not carry, and the agency says so in its own guide: "Conviction information that is not reported to us. While we attempt to retrieve missing court dispositions, we are not always able to get this information."

Two statewide services sit on top of the county filing offices. The Judiciary lists re:SearchIL as the "Statewide Document Repository" under the heading "Remote Access to Reviewing Court Documents", and lists attorney sign-in separately as "Sign-in and Access Documents (currently attorneys only)". eFileIL is listed as "Statewide e-filing". The repository is a document review route rather than a criminal history, and the useful structural point for a search is that a disposition lives in the county that produced it, is reported to the State Police by that county's circuit clerk, and appears on a statewide docket or filing system only to the extent that system reaches that county's documents.

The state repository is not a charge file and the agency says which parts are missing. From the Illinois State Police "Guide to Understanding Criminal History Record Check Information": "Most non-criminal justice entities that submit criminal history information inquiries to the BOI are only authorized to receive conviction information pursuant to state law." Then the exclusions, in the agency's own words: "Arrests transactions which result in a court finding of not guilty or an acquittal can not be disseminated to non-criminal justice entities. If the BOI is unable to obtain a court disposition for an arrest transaction, that arrest is also not disseminated to non-criminal justice entities." And: "ISP is mandated to provide conviction information only (charges that are dismissed or where supervision is received are not conviction information)." A report that shows an arrest that is still pending, or that shows nothing where a dismissal is expected, is reading a file that is built this way on purpose.

The reporting gate cuts the other way for lesser offenses, and that asymmetry is the practical problem with an Illinois name check. The same guide: "Charges that are reportable to ISP include felonies, class A and B misdemeanors, DUI charges, aggravated fleeing and eluding and anti-theft laws. Class C misdemeanors, local ordinances, and numerous traffic offenses are not mandated to be reported so these charges may not be available; however, if these offenses are reported, they may be disseminated." The statute behind it is 20 ILCS 2630/5, which requires agencies to furnish fingerprints and descriptions for "offenses that are classified as felonies and Class A or B misdemeanors", excludes moving and non-moving traffic violations except Chapter 4, §11-204.1 or §11-501, and excludes conservation offenses classified as Class B misdemeanors. So a class C misdemeanor or a municipal ordinance violation is not mandated in, but a class C misdemeanor or municipal ordinance violation that someone did report is available. Availability is therefore a function of what a police agency happened to submit, not of the offense class alone.

A name result is a candidate list and the agency is explicit that it is not an identification. "Responses to name checks are not based on positive identification. Consequently, such responses do not preclude the existence of a record under other personal identifiers." / "If a name check is submitted with personal identifiers which do not match the personal identifiers maintained in the CHRI database, the correct record might not be disseminated." / "A name inquiry has the potential of producing multiple "hits". ... Fingerprints will be required to obtain the correct criminal history data." / "The ISP CHRI database contains over 30 million names." The completeness statement in 20 ILCS 2635/10 is available only on the fingerprint route: it issues "When fingerprint identification accompanies a request for conviction information maintained by the Illinois State Police", and it certifies both that the information "positively pertains to the individual whose fingerprints were submitted" and that the response "contains all the conviction information that has been reported to the Illinois State Police pursuant to Section 2.1 of the Criminal Identification Act". A name-based response has no counterpart statement, which is why a name result cannot be reported to a client as a complete Illinois record.

There are two non-criminal-justice fingerprint routes and they behave differently. "For non-criminal justice purposes, the only submissions that can be submitted are a Fee Applicant fingerprint card or a Uniform Conviction Information Act (UCIA) request." The fee schedule prices them at "Uniform Conviction Information Act Requests | Name-based Inquiry | $16.00" and "Fingerprint Card | $20.00". Retention differs: "Name inquiries are not retained on the CHRI database. Fee applicant fingerprint inquires are retained on the CHRI database. Uniform Conviction Information Act fingerprint inquiries are not retained on the CHRI database." And the federal database is closed on this route: asked "Is my Uniform Conviction Information Request inquiry checked against the FBI's national criminal history database?", the guide answers "No, ISP is not permitted to check the FBI's national criminal history database for non-criminal justice purposes unless authorized by statute." A UCIA check is therefore an Illinois-only conviction check, and the page does not treat it as anything else.

Sealing changes the answer rather than the file. Under 20 ILCS 2630/5.2(d)(9)(C), on an order to seal, the arresting agency, the State Police and the court "shall seal the records", and "In response to an inquiry for such records, from anyone not authorized by law to access such records, the court, the Illinois State Police, or the agency receiving such inquiry shall reply as it does in response to inquiries when no records ever existed." The same formula governs expunged records. The agency confirms the effect on its own file: "If a subject has his or her record expunged, that information is no longer maintained by the BOI." So a sealed or expunged matter does not come back labeled as sealed; it comes back as a clean answer, and a search that finds the matter in a county file or a news archive is holding material the state has been instructed to deny exists.

The one place the state does allow sealed material to be used is narrow and is stated twice. 775 ILCS 5/2-103(A) provides that the arrest-record prohibition "does not prohibit a State agency, unit of local government or school district, or private organization from requesting or utilizing sealed felony conviction information obtained from the Illinois State Police under the provisions of Section 3 of the Criminal Identification Act or under other State or federal laws or regulations that require criminal background checks in evaluating the qualifications and character of an employee or a prospective employee", and MCC 6-10-054(a)(1) repeats it for Chicago. Sealing under 5.2(a)(1)(K) means the records are maintained but made "unavailable without a court order, subject to the exceptions in Sections 12 and 13 of this Act", so sealed material still exists in the State Police file and the exception list is what governs whether it can be reached. Expunged material is different: the definition at 5.2(a)(1)(E) is physical destruction or return to the petitioner with the name obliterated from any official index or public record.

The routing conclusion is that an Illinois answer has to say which of three channels produced it. A State Police name check is a candidate list of conviction information with no completeness statement, no FBI content, and a known gap for offenses that were never mandated into the file. A UCIA fingerprint request is an Illinois-only conviction record carrying the 20 ILCS 2635/10 completeness statement, which is the strongest statement the state issues to a non-criminal-justice requester. A court search is a county file, kept by an elected circuit clerk in one of 102 counties, sitting in one of 25 circuits, and for a matter that ended in supervision or a dismissal it may hold something the State Police record does not carry at all.

The federal baseline

Federal law sets the floor here as it does everywhere. It is at 15 U.S.C. §1681 et seq., it binds the agency and the employer separately, and it does not vary by state. The FCRA article covers it section by section, including the seven-year limits, the salary threshold and the adverse action sequence, so that this page does not restate any of it.

What follows is only the overlay: what Illinois adds on top of that floor, and where it departs from it.

What Illinois law adds

Cities that go further than the state

• Chicago. The Municipal Code of Chicago carries two employment screening ordinances that run alongside the state statutes rather than merely restating them. MCC 6-10-053, "Credit history", provides that "no employer, agent of an employer, employment agency or labor organization" shall fire or refuse to hire because of credit history or a credit report, inquire about credit history, or order or obtain a credit report, and then applies the same seven bona fide occupational requirement circumstances as 820 ILCS 70/10, with Chicago-specific definitions of "marketable assets", "Personal or confidential information", "Financial information", "Trade secrets" and "State or national security information", and carve-outs for banks and financial holding companies, insurers and surety companies, municipal law enforcement and investigative units including the Office of the Inspector General, the Police Department and the Civilian Office of Police Accountability, and debt collectors. MCC 6-10-054, "Criminal history", bars any inquiry into or use of an arrest record as a basis for an employment action, preserves "sealed felony conviction information obtained from the Illinois State Police under the provisions of Section 3 of the Criminal Identification Act" and "other information which indicates that a person actually engaged in the conduct for which the individual was arrested", bars conviction-record use unless applicable law excludes the applicant, a bond is required, a substantial relationship exists, or the employment would involve an unreasonable risk, applies the same six factors, and requires written notice of a preliminary decision containing the reasoning, a copy of the conviction record and an explanation of the right to respond, with "at least 5 business days to respond" and a final written notice carrying "the right to file a complaint with the Commission". MCC 6-10-055 bars job advertisements stating a preference or limitation the ordinance prohibits. The employer definition at MCC 6-10-020 reaches an entity subject to a Title 4 license requirement or maintaining "a business facility within the geographic boundaries of the Cit" (the spelling is the booklet's), and provides that "The City of Chicago and its sister agencies qualify as employers for purposes of Section 6-010-054." The Commission on Human Relations describes the 2023 extension in its own flyer: "Effective April 2023, the City of Chicago expanded protections from criminal history discrimination in employment under the Chicago Human Rights Ordinance", and "The 2023 amendments include all phases of the employment process including recruitment, hiring, promotion, renewal of employment, selection for training, discharge, discipline, different terms and conditions, and tenure." Municipal Code of Chicago 6-10-020, definitions of arrest record, conviction record, credit history, credit report and employer · Municipal Code of Chicago 6-10-053, credit history · Municipal Code of Chicago 6-10-054, criminal history · Municipal Code of Chicago 6-10-055, job opportunity advertisements · Chicago Commission on Human Relations, Ordinance Booklet (Updated May 24, 2023)

Reporting limits at a glance

Every figure below is against Illinois law. Where a row says “federal only”, the state has set nothing and 15 U.S.C. §1681c governs.

Adverse action here

The federal sequence applies unchanged: pre-adverse action notice with a copy of the report and the summary of rights, a reasonable opportunity to dispute, then the adverse action notice with the agency's details and a dispute route. The FCRA article sets it out in full.

Illinois adds a statutory preliminary decision notice that is not the same document as the FCRA pre-adverse action notice, and the difference is what the notice has to contain. 775 ILCS 5/2-103.1(C)(1) requires "notice of the disqualifying conviction or convictions that are the basis for the preliminary decision and the employer's reasoning for the disqualification", "a copy of the conviction history report, if any", and an explanation of the right to respond naming accuracy challenges and mitigation evidence. The federal notice carries the report and the summary of rights; it does not require the employer's reasoning. An employer that sends the federal notice alone has not sent the state notice, even where the two are mailed together.

The response window is a floor rather than a standard. Section 2-103.1(C)(2) provides that "The employee shall have at least 5 business days to respond to the notification provided to the employee before the employer may make a final decision", and (C)(3) requires the employer to consider what the employee submits. Under FCRA the opportunity is a reasonable one; under Illinois a decision taken on day three is taken too early regardless of what the letter said. The extra two days are the cheapest compliance item on the page and the easiest to lose when a process is measured in turnaround time.

The final notice is a separate document with its own content list, and the agency named in it depends on the location. Section 2-103.1(C)(3) requires the disqualifying conviction or convictions, the employer's reasoning, "any existing procedure the employer has for the employee to challenge the decision or request reconsideration", and "the right to file a charge with the Department". In Chicago, MCC 6-10-054(d)(3)(C) requires "the right to file a complaint with the Commission". A single template that names the Department is wrong for a Chicago employer, and the two agencies are different bodies with different procedures.

An adverse action built on an arrest that led nowhere is a civil rights violation on its own, separately from the conviction analysis. 775 ILCS 5/2-103(A) bars inquiring into or using an arrest record, and 775 ILCS 5/1-103(B-5) defines an arrest record to include an arrest not leading to a conviction. The two openings are specific: sealed felony conviction information obtained from the State Police under Section 3 of the Criminal Identification Act, and "other information which indicates that a person actually engaged in the conduct for which he or she was arrested" under subsection (B). A letter that cites a dismissed charge without either basis cites something the Act says may not be used.

If the adverse action rests on a cannabis impairment determination, a second duty attaches before the letter is written. 410 ILCS 705/10-50(d) permits the determination in good faith on "specific, articulable symptoms", but provides that "If an employer elects to discipline an employee on the basis that the employee is under the influence or impaired by cannabis, the employer must afford the employee a reasonable opportunity to contest the basis of the determination." The opportunity is separate from the Section 2-103.1(C) response window and runs on the impairment question rather than on the record.

The ban-the-box remedy runs through a different agency and a different ladder, and it can be triggered by the question rather than by the decision. Under 820 ILCS 75/20 the Department issues a written warning with 30 days to remedy, then penalties escalating to $500 and an additional $1,500 per further violation or per 30 days of continued non-compliance, assessed by the Department and "recovered by civil action in any circuit court or administrative adjudicative proceeding" with the Attorney General appearing for the Department. An application form that asks the question is enough to start that ladder, before any adverse action exists.

Illinois has no state lookback rule and no state counterpart to a reporting window, so old convictions are governed by the substantial relationship and unreasonable risk tests and by whether the record has been sealed or expunged. A conviction that has been sealed comes back from the state as though it never existed, which means an employer relying on a county file or a commercial database for a matter the State Police has been told to deny may be relying on the one source the sealing order did not reach.

Screening in Illinois: what your process needs

• Read 775 ILCS 5/2-103.1 before 820 ILCS 75. The conviction-record rule reaches a one-employee employer and the State and every municipality without regard to size, while the inquiry ban starts at fifteen private-sector employees. The rule with no size floor is the one that governs the decision.
• Do not treat the conditional offer as the safe harbor. JOQAA permits the question once the applicant "has been determined qualified for the position and notified that the applicant has been selected for an interview", or after a conditional offer where there is no interview, so a process that waits for the offer is stricter than the statute and a form that asks is outside it entirely.
• Check the three JOQAA exceptions against the actual position before relying on them: a federal or State law that requires excluding certain convictions, a required standard fidelity bond or equivalent, and positions licensed under the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Systems Act.
• Build the interactive assessment as two documents and one clock. The preliminary notice carries the disqualifying conviction or convictions, the employer's reasoning, a copy of the conviction history report if any, and an explanation of the right to respond that names both accuracy and mitigation. The clock is at least 5 business days. The final notice carries the reasoning, any challenge procedure, and the right to file a charge with the Department.
• Never use an arrest that did not lead to a conviction as a basis for the decision. If the file carries one, decide whether it is sealed felony conviction information obtained from the State Police under Section 3 of the Criminal Identification Act, or other information indicating the person actually engaged in the conduct, and record which basis applies before the letter goes out.
• Do not inquire about credit history or order a credit report unless one of the seven circumstances at 820 ILCS 70/10 applies to the position, and check the thresholds: custody of or unsupervised access to cash or marketable assets valued at $2,500 or more, or signatory power over business assets of $100 or more per transaction. A waiver of rights under the Act is void, so a signed consent does not cure it.
• If the employer uses artificial intelligence in any of the listed employment actions, provide notice as of 1 January 2026 under 775 ILCS 5/2-102(L)(2), and do not let a zip code stand in for a protected class. The Department is directed to adopt rules on the content, timing and means of the notice, and no rule was located on this pass, so the statutory duty is the current baseline.
• Keep zero-tolerance policies but do not skip the impairment procedure. A policy is preserved under 410 ILCS 705/10-50(a) and a failed drug test supports withdrawal of an offer under (e), but a discipline decision resting on impairment requires specific, articulable symptoms and a reasonable opportunity for the employee to contest the basis of the determination.
• Route a fingerprint check to the right channel. For a non-criminal-justice purpose the only submissions are a fee applicant fingerprint card or a UCIA request, and the completeness statement under 20 ILCS 2635/10 issues only when fingerprints accompany the request.
• Do not report a name check to a client as a complete Illinois record. The State Police states that name responses "are not based on positive identification", do not preclude a record under other identifiers, and can produce multiple hits, and that fingerprints "will be required to obtain the correct criminal history data".
• Do not expect federal content from an Illinois state check. The State Police is "not permitted to check the FBI's national criminal history database for non-criminal justice purposes unless authorized by statute", so a UCIA response is an Illinois conviction record and nothing more.
• Expect a sealed or expunged matter to come back clean and plan for the divergence. Under 20 ILCS 2630/5.2(d)(9)(C) the State Police and the courts answer an inquiry "as it does in response to inquiries when no records ever existed", while the sealed felony exception at 775 ILCS 5/2-103(A) allows sealed felony conviction information obtained from the State Police to be requested and used. Sealed and expunged are not the same status: sealing keeps the record and expungement destroys it.
• Scope a court search by county, not by circuit. The circuit court is the trial court and there are 25 circuits, but the file is kept by a circuit clerk elected in each of the 102 counties, and the disposition reaches the State Police only when that clerk reports it under 20 ILCS 2630/2.1.
• Use re:SearchIL for document review and do not treat it as a criminal history. The Judiciary lists it as the "Statewide Document Repository" under remote access to reviewing court documents, with attorney sign-in listed separately as "currently attorneys only", which is a different level of access from the public repository.
• Check Chicago separately if the employer holds a Title 4 license or maintains a business facility in the city. MCC 6-10-053 and 6-10-054 apply alongside the state statutes, MCC 6-10-054(a) bars any inquiry into or use of an arrest record, and the final notice must name the Commission rather than the Department. MCC 6-10-055 also reaches the job advertisement.
• Do not ask whether a prospective employee ever filed a workers' compensation claim, and do not ask for social media credentials or require an employee to authenticate an account in your presence. Both are barred by 820 ILCS 55/10.

Related states

• Wisconsin. Wisconsin forbids every employer in the state, from one employee up, to ask an applicant, an employee or any other individual, on an application form or otherwise, to supply information about any arrest record, and its definition of arrest record runs from a police questioning and being held for investigation through charge, indictment and trial, so the ban is not an application-stage rule and does not lift at an interview. The state’s circuit court docket is published at no charge to anyone, without asking who is requesting it or why.
• Michigan. Michigan lets an applicant withhold a misdemeanor arrest that led to no conviction even when answering under oath, and its state criminal history product deletes each result after seven days while warning it may not be accepted. Its limited-jurisdiction courts sit on city and township lines rather than county lines, so the county is not the unit of search.
• Minnesota. Minnesota requires a report to reach the consumer within 24 hours of going to the employer, and its ban-the-box law binds private employers with no size threshold.

What we do

Illinois runs two hiring-record rules and they are not the same rule twice. The conviction-record rule at 775 ILCS 5/2-103.1 makes use of a conviction record a civil rights violation unless the offense substantially relates to the job or the employment would carry an unreasonable risk, and it applies from one employee, reaching the State, every municipality and every party to a public contract without regard to headcount. The ban-the-box statute at 820 ILCS 75 reaches only private employers with fifteen or more employees, and it stops at the question. On top of the federal sequence Illinois layers a statutory interactive assessment: a written preliminary decision carrying the employer's reasoning and a copy of the report, at least 5 business days to respond, and a second written notice carrying the reasoning and the right to file a charge with the Department. Illinois also restricts employment credit checks to seven circumstances, makes a waiver of those rights void, and bars any inquiry into or use of an arrest record, with a narrow opening for sealed felony conviction information obtained from the State Police. The state file itself is open to public inspection under the Uniform Conviction Information Act, and the State Police states the limits of it plainly: acquittals and arrests with no obtainable disposition are not disseminated, dismissed charges and supervision are not conviction information, class C misdemeanors and local ordinances are in only if someone reported them, name checks are not positive identifications, and an Illinois state check carries no FBI content. Chicago adds a second regime with its own notice citing the Commission rather than the Department. Our Illinois work keeps the substantial-relationship analysis on the record and the reasoning on paper, treats the five business day response window as a floor rather than a target, and says whether an answer came from the State Police by name or by fingerprint, from a county circuit clerk, or from a funder database that holds what the state no longer will. If your current vendor runs Illinois as a fifteen-employee ban-the-box state and stops there, this is where that shows.

Sources

• 775 ILCS 5/2-103.1, Conviction record, the substantial-relationship test and the interactive assessment
• 775 ILCS 5/2-103, Arrest record, and the sealed felony conviction carve-out
• 775 ILCS 5/2-101, definitions, including the employer threshold at (B) and the artificial intelligence definitions at (N) and (O)
• 775 ILCS 5/2-102, Civil rights violations, including the artificial intelligence subsection (L) added by P.A. 103-804, effective 1 January 2026
• 775 ILCS 5/1-103, definitions of arrest record at (B-5) and conviction record at (G-5)
• 820 ILCS 75, the Job Opportunities for Qualified Applicants Act, including the fifteen-employee private-employer threshold at Section 10, the inquiry rule at Section 15 and the penalty ladder at Section 20
• 820 ILCS 70, the Employee Credit Privacy Act, including the seven bona fide occupational requirement circumstances at Section 10 and the anti-waiver provision at Section 20
• 410 ILCS 705/10-50, the Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act employment provision
• 820 ILCS 55, the Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act, including the workers' compensation and personal online account provisions at Section 10 and the E-Verify duties at Section 12
• 20 ILCS 2635, the Uniform Conviction Information Act, including the requester definition at Section 3, the scope at Section 4, public availability at Section 5 and the fingerprint completeness statement at Section 10
• 20 ILCS 2630/5.2, Expungement, sealing, and immediate sealing, including the eligibility and waiting periods at (c), the implementation and non-disclosure reply at (d)(9), immediate sealing at (g), automatic Minor Cannabis Offense expungement at (i) and automatic felony prostitution sealing at (j)
• 20 ILCS 2630/2.1, the reporting duties that build the state criminal history file, including the circuit clerk disposition duty and the 30 day deadline
• 20 ILCS 2630/5, arrest reports, the offense classes mandated into the state file
• Illinois State Police, Guide to Understanding Criminal History Record Check Information, served from the Bureau of Identification Background Check Guide link
• Illinois State Police, Bureau of Identification and its fee schedule, including the $16.00 UCIA name-based inquiry and the $20.00 fingerprint card
• Illinois Courts, Circuit Court, the court structure, the circuit clerk and the statewide document repository and e-filing listings, read live
• Municipal Code of Chicago 6-10-020, 6-10-053, 6-10-054 and 6-10-055, read from the Chicago Commission on Human Relations Ordinance Booklet (Updated May 24, 2023)
• Chicago Commission on Human Relations, Ordinances and Protected Classes, listing criminal history and credit history as protected classes (employment only) and the effective April 2023 expansion
• Route note: ilga.gov refused every direct request from this environment, so every Illinois statute quotation on this page was read through Internet Archive raw replay of the same URL using the id_ modifier. Two ILGA filenames were recovered through the Internet Archive CDX API after the first pass guessed them wrong. The 2026-04-18 capture of 775 ILCS 5/2-102 confirms the artificial intelligence subsection added by P.A. 103-804 is carried in the section. The r.jina.ai reader proxy returned a Cloudflare interstitial on this pass. codelibrary.amlegal.com returns HTTP 403 to direct requests and library.municode.com serves an index shell, so the Chicago overlay was read from the City's own published ordinance booklet rather than from the code host, and no other Illinois municipal code was read. The State Police pages, the Background Check Guide PDF and the Judiciary pages were reachable live. No Illinois case law was read.

Last reviewed 23 September 2026. This page is checked on a quarterly cycle, because state screening law changes every legislative session. Nothing here is legal advice; see the terms of use.