When a “Clean” Background Check Isn’t Clean: The Piccolo Case and the Illusion of Database Reliability

Introduction

Many employers believe that running a criminal database search—or even a fingerprint-based state repository search—is sufficient to ensure they are hiring safely and responsibly. The recent case of Fredrick Piccolo Jr. is a stark reminder that this assumption is not only mistaken but potentially dangerous.

When New College of Florida hired Piccolo as its Director of Marketing & Media, Strategic Communications, the college relied on a Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) Criminal History search. That search returned “no relevant criminal records.” Yet public court filings revealed Piccolo had already been charged three times for indecent exposure—information that would have been discovered with a simple county-level court record search.

The Case

In late 2023, retail employees in Sarasota County reported that Piccolo had exposed himself on multiple occasions inside department stores. Because the Sarasota County Sheriff’s Office filed non-arrest affidavits rather than making arrests, there were no fingerprints on file—so the state repository contained no record of these charges.

The FDLE itself acknowledges that its system can miss cases if no arrest or fingerprint record exists. But New College failed to supplement the repository search with a direct search of Sarasota County court records, something any qualified background investigation provider would have recommended.

Within months of being hired, Piccolo was charged again—this time with a felony—after an additional incident in a neighboring county.

Why This Matters

This case illustrates the limitations of over-reliance on criminal databases or fingerprint repositories:

• Non-arrest charges are frequently excluded.
• Fingerprint-based searches can produce false negatives.
• Local court records often contain the most current and complete information.

Employers that rely exclusively on state repositories or national databases can be blindsided by significant omissions—leading to costly hiring mistakes, workplace safety risks, and reputational damage.

Thuro’s Approach

At Thuro, we strongly recommend—and routinely conduct—direct county and local courthouse searches for all jurisdictions where an applicant has lived or worked. These searches uncover records that repositories and databases often miss.

Comprehensive criminal research requires:

• Layered searches, including local court indices, repository checks, and national indices.
• Confirmation of case status directly with the court of record.
• A defensible investigative process documented by certified analysts.

Conclusion

The lesson is clear: a “clean” database result does not guarantee a clean record. Employers should partner with a background investigation provider dedicated to thorough, accurate, and legally defensible searches.

Contact Thuro today to learn how our rigorous approach can protect your organization, your employees, and your customers.

This white paper is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Employers should consult qualified legal counsel regarding their background screening obligations and policies.

About the Author

Kevin Prendergast is the President of Thuro and a recognized authority on employment background investigations and compliance. With more than 30 years in the background screening industry, Kevin has guided Fortune 500 companies, professional services firms, and government contractors in designing compliant, effective investigative programs. If you would like to discuss any aspects about your background screening program or are looking to partner with a superior provider, contact Kevin at kprendergast@thhro.ai.