I still remember the first time someone asked me if they could walk into court with a people search printout and use it as proof. They had that hopeful look — the “I found everything online, so this must be solid” kind of confidence. I hated to be the one to burst the bubble, but I had to tell them the truth: judges don’t take screenshots of random websites as evidence. Not even if they look convincing. Not even if the info turns out to be right.
Here’s what most people don’t realize — those people search reports you pull from sites like BeenVerified, TruthFinder, or Spokeo are not official records. They’re summaries of public information scraped from hundreds of different sources, and sometimes those sources are already out of date or mismatched. The sites even admit this in the fine print. If you scroll all the way down, you’ll find a disclaimer saying something like: “This information is for personal use only and not to be used for employment, tenant, or legal purposes.” That sentence exists because they know it wouldn’t hold up under legal scrutiny.
And it’s not that judges hate the internet. It’s that courts rely on something called authentication. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 901, you have to prove that a document “is what it claims to be.” A printout from a private website doesn’t meet that bar. There’s no chain of custody, no sworn custodian, no verification that the record hasn’t been changed. Anyone could type up a report and slap a logo on it.
I once saw a small claims hearing where someone actually tried it. They had a binder full of online background reports — neat, color-coded, even tabbed by name. The judge flipped through it, sighed, and said, “This is interesting, but it’s not evidence.” He told the person to go get certified records from the clerk’s office. You could see the frustration all over their face. They’d spent hours pulling that data, thinking they were prepared. But the law isn’t built around convenience. It’s built around proof.
That’s really the heart of it. A people search report might lead you to the right information, but it’s not the information itself. It’s a clue, not a conclusion. Think of it like hearing a rumor about someone and then going to find the actual document that confirms it. You can mention the rumor — but you can’t build your case on it.
There’s a phrase that comes up in legal circles: “best evidence.” It means the court wants the most reliable, original source of truth. If you’re claiming someone has a criminal record, for instance, the “best evidence” is the certified document from the court where the conviction occurred — not a web page summarizing it. The Federal Trade Commission reinforces this principle under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), which sets rules for accuracy and consent when using personal data. Most people search sites are not FCRA compliant, which means their reports can’t be used for decisions that affect someone’s rights or reputation.
What’s interesting, though, is that these sites are still incredibly useful — just not in the way people think. Investigators, journalists, and even attorneys use them to find leads. The reports help connect dots: addresses, phone numbers, relatives, old court filings. They point you toward where to dig next. It’s like using a flashlight in a dark room. It helps you see where to go, but it’s not the thing you show the jury.
I once talked to a private investigator who told me that nine out of ten of his cases start with an online search. “People search tools are like a map,” he said. “But the evidence comes from the courthouse.” He’d use them to find addresses and then drive out to the clerk’s office to pull certified copies of property deeds, lawsuits, or criminal records. That’s the step most people skip — and it’s the step that makes or breaks a case.
There’s also the matter of hearsay. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 802, hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. A people search report is literally a collection of out-of-court statements compiled by someone who isn’t there to testify. So unless you can bring in the data provider to explain how they verified every line, it’s not admissible. Judges don’t want to rely on “someone else’s data about someone else.”
In the case of U.S. v. Mejia (448 F.3d 436, D.C. Cir. 2006), the court rejected evidence based on electronic data because it wasn’t properly authenticated. It’s a different kind of record, but the same rule applies — the court can’t just take a file’s word for it. Someone needs to stand behind that data.
I think people underestimate how strict the rules of evidence are because we live in a world of screenshots and fast information. Online, we share and repost things without questioning the source. But in court, you can’t build an argument on convenience. You need something verifiable — something official. And that’s a good thing, honestly. It protects everyone from being judged based on half-truths or outdated information.
Now, are there exceptions? Kind of. In informal hearings or mediation, judges might glance at a people search report just to get a sense of background, but they won’t base their decision on it. It’s more of a visual aid than a piece of evidence. And if the other side doesn’t object, it might get discussed. But that’s rare, and it’s risky. You don’t want your case to rest on something that can be thrown out with a single objection.
The better approach — and this is what lawyers actually do — is to use the people search report as your roadmap. If it lists a prior address, go to that county’s property appraiser site and download the deed. If it lists a criminal case number, go to the state’s online court database or the clerk’s office and pull the certified judgment. Those are the versions that hold weight. A good resource for finding official databases is OnlineSearches.com, which links to public record sites by state and county.
And if you ever plan to present anything like that in court, keep a record of where you got it. Courts like paper trails. If you printed something from a government website, save the URL and the date you accessed it. Some clerks will even notarize or certify the digital copies for you now, depending on the jurisdiction. That little detail can be the difference between admissible and inadmissible.
So can you use a people search report in court? Sure — if you just want to show where you started. But not as evidence. Think of it as the beginning of your research, not the end. It’s like showing up to a job interview with a Wikipedia page about your experience — it’s not the same as showing your résumé.
What I’ve learned after seeing people make this mistake is that being “prepared” isn’t about printing more pages; it’s about finding the right ones. The ones with seals, signatures, and dates. The ones that someone in authority can vouch for. That’s how you turn information into evidence.
And honestly, there’s something grounding about that. In a world where everything’s instant and editable, the law still demands something solid. Something real. Maybe that’s not such a bad reminder.
For anyone who wants to learn more, the FTC’s FCRA overview, CFPB compliance guide, and the Cornell Law Federal Rules of Evidence are excellent places to start. They lay out the difference between data and evidence better than any website printout ever could.
