Tenant Selection - Criminal History

Criminal background checks remain a legitimate tenant-screening tool. Landlords have a real responsibility to protect residents, employees, neighbors, and rental property.

But the existence of a criminal record does not automatically answer the question that matters:

Does this particular record indicate a meaningful present risk to the property or the people who live there?

The answer depends on the offense, its age, its disposition, its relevance to housing, and the law governing the property's location.

Florida does not currently impose a statewide "fair-chance housing" process comparable to those adopted in New York City, Seattle, Oakland, and several other jurisdictions. Criminal history is also not itself a protected class under either the federal Fair Housing Act or the Florida Fair Housing Act.

That does not mean Florida landlords should use every record that appears on a screening report—or adopt a blanket "no criminal history" policy.

The short answer for Florida landlords

Florida landlords may generally consider accurate criminal-conviction records when making rental decisions.

The safest screening policy:

• Considers convictions rather than arrests.
• Focuses on conduct relevant to safety, property, fraud, or the peaceful enjoyment of the premises.
• Establishes reasonable lookback periods.
• Distinguishes serious offenses from minor or unrelated offenses.
• Applies the same written standards to every applicant.
• Allows questionable or inaccurate records to be explained.
• Provides the required adverse-action notice when a consumer report influences the decision.

The Florida Fair Housing Act prohibits rental discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, disability, familial status, and religion. A criminal-history policy cannot be applied differently because an applicant belongs to one of those protected groups.

Important 2025 HUD policy change

For years, articles about criminal-history screening relied heavily on HUD's 2016 guidance. That guidance discouraged blanket exclusions and recommended evaluating the nature of the offense, the time elapsed, and mitigating circumstances.

The legal landscape changed in 2025.

On September 25, 2025, HUD's Office of General Counsel announced that the 2016 criminal-record guidance no longer represented HUD's official legal opinion. HUD separately withdrew its 2022 implementation guidance and stated that those documents should no longer be treated as authoritative. HUD also announced that investigations involving screening for felony convictions would no longer be an enforcement priority.

That does not mean landlords now have unlimited discretion.

The Fair Housing Act remains in effect, and the Supreme Court has held that certain policies may violate the Act when they create an unjustified discriminatory effect on a protected group. The Court also emphasized that disparate-impact liability must have safeguards so legitimate business and safety policies are not displaced.

The practical lesson is straightforward: the old HUD guidance is no longer controlling agency policy, but a reasonable, relevant, and consistently applied screening standard remains the best protection against discrimination claims and poor screening decisions.

Records landlords should not treat as convictions

Arrests without convictions

An arrest shows that someone was accused. It does not establish that the person committed the alleged offense.

The charge may have been dismissed, reduced, abandoned, or based on mistaken identity. Treating an arrest as proof of misconduct creates both fairness and accuracy problems.

An arrest may sometimes lead a landlord to verify the final disposition, but it should not ordinarily serve as the sole basis for denial.

Dismissed charges and acquittals

A dismissed case or acquittal is not a conviction. Screening reports sometimes display the original charge prominently while failing to make the final disposition equally clear.

Landlords should review the complete record rather than relying on a headline, risk score, or automated "decline" recommendation.

Sealed, expunged, or legally restricted records

A screening report should not contain records that have been sealed, expunged, or otherwise removed from public availability. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has warned screening companies that reporting expunged or legally restricted criminal records may violate federal accuracy requirements.

If such a record appears, do not assume it is usable merely because the screening company reported it.

Records belonging to someone else

Common names, incomplete identifiers, aliases, and database errors can connect an applicant to another person's case. Confirm that the record matches the applicant by more than name alone.

Convictions that may justify closer review

A conviction is potentially relevant when the underlying conduct bears a reasonable relationship to the tenancy.

Examples may include:

• Recent violent offenses.
• Arson or intentional property destruction.
• Burglary, theft, or serious fraud.
• Criminal activity directed against a landlord, resident, or housing provider.
• Serious offenses involving weapons or credible threats.
• Illegal drug manufacturing or distribution.
• Sexual offenses that create a demonstrable resident-safety concern.

Federal law specifically provides that the Fair Housing Act does not prohibit action against a person convicted of illegally manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance. That exception applies to manufacture and distribution—not every drug-related offense.

Even when a conviction is relevant, the record should be verified and evaluated under the landlord's written policy.

Five questions to ask before denying an applicant

1. What actually happened?

Do not make the decision from the name of the charge alone. Determine the final disposition and the conduct underlying the conviction.

"Fraud," for example, may have more direct relevance to a rental transaction than an unrelated misdemeanor carrying a more alarming title.

2. How serious was the offense?

A violent felony should not be treated the same as a minor nonviolent misdemeanor. A policy that places every conviction into one automatic-denial category is difficult to defend as a serious risk-management system.

3. How much time has passed?

The age of the conviction matters. A recent pattern of serious conduct generally presents a different risk than one old conviction followed by years of lawful behavior.

Use defined lookback periods rather than vague standards such as "any criminal history."

4. Is the conduct connected to a legitimate housing concern?

The landlord's concern should be specific:

• Resident or employee safety.
• Protection of the property.
• Fraud in the rental transaction.
• Serious interference with other residents' peaceful enjoyment.
• Criminal activity likely to be repeated at the property.

"Protecting the community" is not a substitute for explaining how the particular offense relates to the tenancy.

5. Is the same standard being applied to everyone?

Consistency is essential.

A landlord who overlooks one applicant's record but rejects another applicant with a comparable record may create evidence of discriminatory treatment—even if the written policy appears neutral.

Document what was considered, which policy provision applied, and why the decision was reached.

A practical criminal-history decision framework

This framework is not a universal legal mandate. It is a practical method for producing consistent and defensible decisions.

Fair-chance laws can change the process

A policy that is lawful in Florida may be prohibited elsewhere.

Some jurisdictions restrict:

• When a criminal report may be ordered.
• Which offenses may be reviewed.
• How far back a landlord may look.
• Whether a conditional rental offer must be made first.
• What explanation and appeal opportunity must be provided.
• What may be stated in rental advertisements.

New York City, for example, requires many covered housing providers to evaluate general eligibility and make a conditional offer before reviewing limited conviction information. It also prohibits consideration of many arrests, sealed records, youthful-offender matters, and older convictions.

Florida landlords purchasing property outside the state—or management companies operating in multiple jurisdictions—must never assume that one screening policy works everywhere.

The Fair Credit Reporting Act still applies

When a landlord obtains a criminal background report from a tenant-screening company, the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act applies.

The landlord must have a permissible rental-housing purpose for obtaining the report. The report should not be ordered for curiosity, neighborhood investigation, or another unrelated purpose.

If information in the report plays any part in an adverse decision, the landlord must provide an adverse-action notice. This applies when the landlord:

• Rejects the application.
• Requires a co-signer.
• Charges a higher deposit.
• Requires higher rent or less favorable terms because of the report.

The notice must identify the screening company, provide its address and telephone number, explain that the company did not make the rental decision, and notify the applicant of the right to obtain a free report and dispute inaccurate information. The notice is required even when the report was only one factor in the decision.

What landlords can still use

Criminal history is only one part of tenant screening—and frequently not the most predictive part.

Landlords may continue evaluating lawful, consistently applied criteria such as:

• Verified income.
• Employment or other lawful income verification.
• Credit history.
• Rental-payment history.
• Prior landlord references.
• Lease-violation history.
• Eviction records, subject to accuracy and applicable law.
• Debt and collection history.
• Identity verification.
• Occupancy qualifications.

Financial ability, rental performance, and landlord references often provide a clearer picture of whether the applicant will pay the rent, care for the property, and follow the lease.

Common mistakes landlords should avoid

• Advertising "no felons" or "no criminal record."
• Automatically rejecting every applicant with a conviction.
• Treating an arrest as proof of criminal conduct.
• Using different standards for different applicants.
• Relying entirely on a screening company's score or recommendation.
• Failing to review the final disposition of a case.
• Considering sealed, expunged, duplicated, or mismatched records.
• Using an unlimited lookback period for every offense.
• Failing to check state and local law.
• Forgetting the adverse-action notice.
• Keeping no written record of why the decision was made.

A better written policy

A sound policy might state:

Criminal-conviction information may be considered when the nature, severity, recency, and underlying conduct bear a reasonable relationship to resident safety, property protection, fraud prevention, or the peaceful enjoyment of the premises. Arrests alone, dismissed charges, acquittals, and records that are sealed, expunged, inaccurate, or associated with another person will not be treated as convictions. All applicants will be evaluated under the same standards.

The policy should then establish offense categories, reasonable lookback periods, who reviews disputed records, and how decisions are documented.

Paul's Take

Criminal records should neither be ignored nor used as a substitute for judgment. Landlords have a legitimate duty to protect their residents and their property. A recent conviction for violence, arson, or serious fraud may matter a great deal. A decades-old, unrelated misdemeanor may tell us almost nothing about whether someone will pay the rent or care for the home.

The answer is not to abandon criminal screening. It is to screen intelligently. Know what the record actually says, connect it to a legitimate rental concern, apply the same standard to everyone, and document the decision. That approach protects the landlord without turning every person who once made a mistake into a permanent housing risk.

Read More About This

This guide connects to supporting Florida Landlord Network articles and resources on:

• Building a Written Tenant-Screening Policy
• Arrests Versus Convictions in Rental Decisions
• How to Write an Adverse-Action Notice
• Tenant-Screening Report Errors and Identity Mismatches
• Fair Housing and Disparate-Impact Claims
• Screening Applicants Across Multiple States
• Income, Credit, Rental History, and Other Lawful Screening Criteria

This article provides general educational information and is not legal advice. Screening laws change frequently. Housing providers should verify federal, Florida, and local requirements applicable to the property before ordering or using criminal-history information.