DOCSLIB.ORG

Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook Revised 2004 EDITORIAL NOTE: The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program staff of the FBI worked for over three years on the revision of the UCR handbook. Individuals from the various units that make up the national UCR Program read, reviewed, and made suggestions during this long endeavor. Our goal was to make the handbook user friendly as well as educationally sound. From a pedagogical standpoint, we tried to present one concept at a time and not overwhelm the user with too much information at once. Consequently, classifying and scoring are presented in two separate chapters. The user can learn first how to classify the Part I offenses and then how to score them. For easy reference, we consolidated explanations of important UCR concepts, such as jurisdiction, hierarchy, and separation of time and place, in one chapter. We retained many of the examples with which users are already familiar, and we also updated many of the examples so they better reflect the American society of the twenty-first century. Further, where possible, we tried to align summary and National Incident- Based Reporting System (NIBRS) ideas and definitions to help emphasize that summary and NIBRS are part of the same UCR Program. Listening to suggestions from users of this manual, we added an Index as a quick-reference aid and a Glossary; however, we were cautious to retain standard UCR definitions. The national UCR Program thanks the many substance review- ers from various state UCR Programs for their time and for their constructive comments. These suggestions were invaluable to the completion of this project; we recognize that the state Programs and their participating agencies and their considerable efforts in data collection and reporting are the foundation of a successful national Program. FOREWORD The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program has expanded in scope, importance, and size since its inception over seven decades ago. The Program began with law enforcement agencies in 400 cities from 43 states submitting crime data in January 1930 and now encompasses approximately 17,000 law enforcement agencies nationwide that voluntarily contribute their crime statistics. Without the support of these city, county, state, tribal, and federal agencies, the Program could not fulfill its mission to generate a reliable set of crime statistics for use in law enforcement administration, operation, and management. To ensure the best reporting possible, the UCR staff developed, and has further revised, this handbook to assist participating agencies in understanding and completing monthly and annual reporting forms. It is of the utmost importance that adminis- trators, as well as those persons bearing responsibility for preparing the reports, have a thorough understanding of information contained in this handbook. The completeness and accuracy of each agency’s crime reporting is crucial to a wide variety of data users so that they can understand crime, formulate policies, make strategic and operational decisions, and conduct criminological research and analysis. Inquiries concerning UCR may be addressed to: Uniform Crime Reporting Program Federal Bureau of Investigation 1000 Custer Hollow Road Clarksburg, WV 26306 (888) UCR-NIBR/(888) 827-6427 Additional copies of this handbook are available upon request. The handbook is also published on the FBI’s Web site at <www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm>. City, County, State, Tribal, and Federal Law Enforcement UCR Agencies State Programs Direc t Subm issi on UniformUniform CrimeCrime ReportsReports UCR Publications & Special Compilations 1,650,000 1,450,000 1,250,000 1,050,000 Total 850,000 Law Possession Sale/Manufacturing 650,000 Crime in the 450,000 United States Enforcement 250,000 50,000 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Legislators Uniform Crime Reports Academia Hate Crime Media Statistics 70 60 50 Protect 40 Researchers 30 20 Serve 10 0 Law Enforcement Judiciary Officers Killed and Assaulted Contents INTRODUCTION . .1 Uniform Crime Reporting Program Publications . .1 Historical Background . .2 The National Incident-Based Reporting System . .3 Advisory Groups . .3 Quality Assurance Review . .3 State UCR Programs . .4 Non-Program States . .5 Law Enforcement Data Requirements . .5 CHAPTER I—GENERAL INFORMATION . .7 Classifying and Scoring . .7 Offenses . .8 Jurisdiction . .8 Hierarchy Rule . .10 Separation of Time and Place Rule . .12 CHAPTER II—CLASSIFYING OFFENSES . .15 CRIMINAL HOMICIDE (1) . .15 Criminal Homicide—Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter (1a) . .15 Justifiable Homicide . .17 Criminal Homicide—Manslaughter by Negligence (1b) . .18 FORCIBLE RAPE (2) . .19 Forcible Rape—Rape by Force (2a) . .19 Forcible Rape—Attempts to Commit Forcible Rape (2b) . .20 ROBBERY (3) . .21 Robbery—Firearm (3a) . .21 Robbery—Knife or Cutting Instrument (3b) . .22 Robbery—Other Dangerous Weapon (3c) . .22 Robbery—Strong-arm—Hands, Fists, Feet, Etc. (3d) . .23 AGGRAVATED ASSAULT (4) . .23 Aggravated Assault—Firearm (4a) . .24 Aggravated Assault—Knife or Cutting Instrument (4b) . .24 Aggravated Assault—Other Dangerous Weapon (4c) . .25 Aggravated Assault—Hands, Fists, Feet, Etc.—Aggravated Injury (4d) . .25 Other Assaults—Simple, Not Aggravated (4e) . .26 Aids to Classifying Assaults . .26 BURGLARY—BREAKING OR ENTERING (5) . .28 Hotel Rule . .28 Burglary—Forcible Entry (5a) . .29 Burglary—Unlawful Entry—No Force (5b) . .30 Burglary—Attempted Forcible Entry (5c) . .31 LARCENY-THEFT (6) . .31 Pocket-picking (6Xa) . .32 Purse-snatching (6Xb) . .32 Shoplifting (6Xc) . .32 Theft From Motor Vehicles (Except Theft of Motor Vehicle Parts and Accessories) (6Xd) . .33 Theft of Motor Vehicle Parts and Accessories (6Xe) . .33 Theft of Bicycles (6Xf) . .34 Theft From Buildings (6Xg) . .34 Theft From Coin-operated Device or Machine (6Xh) . .34 All Other Larceny-theft Not Specifically Classified (6Xi) . .35 MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT (7) . .35 Motor Vehicle Theft—Autos (7a) . ..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • What Is an International Crime? (A Revisionist History)
    \\jciprod01\productn\H\HLI\58-2\HLI205.txt unknown Seq: 1 14-FEB-18 9:00 Volume 58, Number 2, Spring 2017 What Is an International Crime? (A Revisionist History) Kevin Jon Heller* The question “what is an international crime?” has two aspects. First, it asks us to identify which acts qualify as international crimes. Second, and more fundamentally, it asks us to identify what is distinctive about an international crime. Some disagreement exists concerning the first issue, particularly with regard to torture and terrorism. But nearly all states, international tribunals, and ICL scholars take the same position concerning the second issue, insisting that an act qualifies as an international crime if—and only if—that act is universally criminal under international law. This definition of an international crime leads to an obvious question: how exactly does an act become universally criminal under international law? One answer, the “direct criminalization thesis” (DCT), is that certain acts are universally criminal because they are directly criminalized by international law itself, regardless of whether states criminalize them. Another answer, the “national criminalization the- sis” (NCT), rejects the idea that international law directly criminalizes particular acts. According to the NCT, certain acts are universally criminal because international law obligates every state in the world to criminalize them. This Article argues that if we take positivism seriously, as every international criminal tribunal since Nuremberg has insisted we must, the NCT provides the only coherent explanation of how international law can deem certain acts to be universally criminal. I. INTRODUCTION The question posed by the title of this Article has two aspects.
    [Show full text]
  • Charging Language
    1. TABLE OF CONTENTS Abduction ................................................................................................73 By Relative.........................................................................................415-420 See Kidnapping Abuse, Animal ...............................................................................................358-362,365-368 Abuse, Child ................................................................................................74-77 Abuse, Vulnerable Adult ...............................................................................78,79 Accessory After The Fact ..............................................................................38 Adultery ................................................................................................357 Aircraft Explosive............................................................................................455 Alcohol AWOL Machine.................................................................................19,20 Retail/Retail Dealer ............................................................................14-18 Tax ................................................................................................20-21 Intoxicated – Endanger ......................................................................19 Disturbance .......................................................................................19 Drinking – Prohibited Places .............................................................17-20 Minors – Citation Only
    [Show full text]
  • YALE ARCHITECTURE FALL 2011 Constructs Yale Architecture
    1 CONSTRUCTS YALE ARCHITECTURE FALL 2011 Constructs Yale Architecture Fall 2011 Contents “Permanent Change” symposium review by Brennan Buck 2 David Chipperfield in Conversation Anne Tyng: Inhabiting Geometry 4 Grafton Architecture: Shelley McNamara exhibition review by Alicia Imperiale and Yvonne Farrell in Conversation New Users Group at Yale by David 6 Agents of Change: Geoff Shearcroft and Sadighian and Daniel Bozhkov Daisy Froud in Conversation Machu Picchu Artifacts 7 Kevin Roche: Architecture as 18 Book Reviews: Environment exhibition review by No More Play review by Andrew Lyon Nicholas Adams Architecture in Uniform review by 8 “Thinking Big” symposium review by Jennifer Leung Jacob Reidel Neo-avant-garde and Postmodern 10 “Middle Ground/Middle East: Religious review by Enrique Ramirez Sites in Urban Contexts” symposium Pride in Modesty review by Britt Eversole review by Erene Rafik Morcos 20 Spring 2011 Lectures 11 Commentaries by Karla Britton and 22 Spring 2011 Advanced Studios Michael J. Crosbie 23 Yale School of Architecture Books 12 Yale’s MED Symposium and Fab Lab 24 Faculty News 13 Fall 2011 Exhibitions: Yale Urban Ecology and Design Lab Ceci n’est pas une reverie: In Praise of the Obsolete by Olympia Kazi The Architecture of Stanley Tigerman 26 Alumni News Gwathmey Siegel: Inspiration and New York Dozen review by John Hill Transformation See Yourself Sensing by Madeline 16 In The Field: Schwartzman Jugaad Urbanism exhibition review by Tributes to Douglas Garofalo by Stanley Cynthia Barton Tigerman and Ed Mitchell 2 CONSTRUCTS YALE ARCHITECTURE FALL 2011 David Chipperfield David Chipperfield Architects, Neues Museum, façade, Berlin, Germany 1997–2009.
    [Show full text]
  • Disorder in Urban Neighborhoods
    U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice National Institute of Justice R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f Julie E. Samuels, Acting Director February 2001 Issues and Findings Disorder in Urban Neighborhoods— Discussed in this Brief: The link between disorder and crime; Does It Lead to Crime? specifically, whether manifesta- tions of social and physical disor- By Robert J. Sampson and Stephen W. Raudenbush der, such as public drunkenness, graffiti, and broken windows, According to a now-familiar thesis, social Disorder is indeed related to crime. The lead directly to more serious and physical disorder in urban neighbor- broken windows metaphor is apt insofar as offenses. The study, part of the hoods can, if unchecked, lead to serious it asserts that physical signs of decay sig- long-range Project on Human crime. The reasoning is that even such nal neighbors’ unwillingness to confront Development in Chicago minor public incivilities as drinking in strangers, intervene when a crime is being Neighborhoods, assesses the the street, spray-painting graffiti, and committed, or ask the police to respond. “broken windows” thesis and breaking windows can escalate into preda- Disorder may in fact be more useful than its implications for crime control tory crime because prospective offenders crime for understanding certain troubling policy and practice. assume from these manifestations of dis- urban processes, such as the abandonment Key issues: The assumption that order that area residents are indifferent of many of the Nation’s urban cores. That social and physical disorder can to what happens in their neighborhood.1 is because disorder can be observed, escalate to serious crime has had The “broken windows” thesis has greatly while crime, by contrast, is largely unob- a major influence on law enforce- influenced crime control policy, with served.
    [Show full text]
  • In Custody List **Total Inmates Does Not Include ICE Detainees **Current As Of: Total Inmates: 28 November 09, 2020 6:48 Am
    Freeborn Co Adult Detenton Center In Custody List **Total Inmates does not include ICE Detainees **Current as of: Total Inmates: 28 November 09, 2020 6:48 am Ashley, Nicholas Ryan Charge(s) Burglary-3rd Deg-Steal/Commit Felony or Gross Misd Intake Date: October 15, 2020 Intake Time: 1:05 pm Ba, La Charge(s) Drugs - 5th Degree - Possess Schedule 1,2,3,4 - Not Small Amount Marijuana Domestic Abuse - Violate Order for Intake Date: November 01, 2020 Protection Intake Time: 12:21 am Boots-Ringoen, Dominik Nikko Charge(s) Criminal Vehicular Homicide - Operate Vehicle with Negligence - Under Influence Alcohol Intake Date: August 27, 2020 Traffic - DWI - Operate Motor Vehicle - Alcohol Concentration 0.08 Within 2 Intake Time: 10:31 pm Hours Disorderly Conduct-Brawling or Fighting Criminal Vehicular Operation - Great Bodily Harm - Gross Negligence Traffic-Drivers License-Driving After Revocation Traffic - Underage drinking and driving; Crime described Burt, Adam Robert Charge(s) Assault-3rd Degree-Substantial Bodily Harm Traffic - DWI - First-Degree DWI;w/in Intake Date: February 14, 2020 10 yrs of 3 or more qualified prior impaired driving incidents Intake Time: 4:43 pm Page 1 of 6 Everet, Michael Leonard Charge(s) Harassment; Restraining Order - Violate and knows of temporary or restraining order Intake Date: November 06, 2020 Intake Time: 5:53 pm Fishel, Adam Dwayne Charge(s) Fleeing a Peace Officer in a Motor Vehicle Traffic - DWI - Operate Motor Vehicle - Intake Date: November 01, 2020 Alcohol Concentration 0.08 Within 2 Hours Intake Time:
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence in Criminal Proceedings Hearsay and Related Topics
    Criminal Law EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS: HEARSAY AND RELATED TOPICS A Consultation Paper LAW COMMISSION CONSULTATION PAPER No 138 The Law Commission was set up by section 1 of the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Honourable Mr Justice Brooke, Chairman Professor Andrew Burrows Miss Diana Faber Mr Charles Harpum Mr Stephen Silber, QC The Secretary of the Law Commission is Mr Michael Sayers and its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London WClN 2BQ. This Consultation Paper, completed for publication on 11 May 1995, is circulated for comment and criticism only. It does not represent the final views of the Law Commission. The Law Commission would be grateful for comments on this Consultation Paper before 31 October 1995. All correspondence should be addressed to: Ms C Hughes Law Commission Conquest House 37-38 John Street Theobalds Road London WClN 2BQ (Tel: 0171- 453 1232) (Fax: 0171- 453 1297) It may be helpful for the Law Commission, either in discussion with others concerned or in any subsequent recommendations, to be able to refer to and attribute comments submitted in response to this Consultation Paper. Any request to treat all, or part, of a response in confidence will, of course, be respected, but if no such request is made the Law Commission will assume that the response is not intended to be confidential. The Law Commission Consultation Paper No 138 Criminal Law EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS: HEARSAY AND RELATED TOPICS
    [Show full text]
  • Casenotes: Criminal Law—Homicide—Felony-Murder—Felon Is
    University of Baltimore Law Review Volume 9 Article 9 Issue 3 Spring 1980 1980 Casenotes: Criminal Law — Homicide — Felony- Murder — Felon Is Culpable for Murder in the First Degree under Maryland's Felony-Murder Statute When Police Officer Kills Kidnapped Hostage Used by Felon as Human Shield. Jackson v. State, 286 Md. 430, 408 A.2d 711 (1979) John A. Roberts University of Baltimore School of Law Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/ublr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Roberts, John A. (1980) "Casenotes: Criminal Law — Homicide — Felony-Murder — Felon Is Culpable for Murder in the First Degree under Maryland's Felony-Murder Statute When Police Officer Kills Kidnapped Hostage Used by Felon as Human Shield. Jackson v. State, 286 Md. 430, 408 A.2d 711 (1979)," University of Baltimore Law Review: Vol. 9: Iss. 3, Article 9. Available at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/ublr/vol9/iss3/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Baltimore Law Review by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CRIMINAL LAW - HOMICIDE - FELONY-MURDER - FELON IS CULPABLE FOR MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE UNDER MARYLAND'S FELONY-MURDER STATUTE WHEN POLICE OFFICER KILLS KIDNAPPED HOSTAGE USED BY FELON AS HUMAN SHIELD. JACKSON v. STATE, 286 Md. 430, 408 A.2d 711 (1979). At common law, when one commits homicide while perpetrating a felony, the felony-murder rule raises that homicide to murder.' In Maryland, when a person commits murder in the perpetration of one or more statutorily-enumerated felonies, that murder is in the first degree under the state's felony-murder statute.2 Maryland courts have readily applied this statute when the felon has struck the fatal blow.' Recently, in Jackson v.
    [Show full text]
  • Fire and Arson Scene Evidence: a Guide for Public Safety Personnel
    U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice FireFire andand ArsonArson SceneScene Evidence:Evidence: A Guide for Public Safety Personnel Research Report U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs 810 Seventh Street N.W. Washington, DC 20531 Janet Reno Attorney General Daniel Marcus Acting Associate Attorney General Mary Lou Leary Acting Assistant Attorney General Julie E. Samuels Acting Director, National Institute of Justice Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice World Wide Web Site World Wide Web Site http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij Fire and Arson Scene Evidence: A Guide for Public Safety Personnel Written and Approved by the Technical Working Group on Fire/Arson Scene Investigation June 2000 NCJ 181584 Julie E. Samuels Acting Director David G. Boyd, Ph.D. Deputy Director Richard M. Rau, Ph.D. Project Monitor Opinions or points of view expressed in this document represent a consensus of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Justice. The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. Message From the Attorney General ctions taken at the outset of an investigation at a fire and Aarson scene can play a pivotal role in the resolution of a case. Careful, thorough investigation is key to ensuring that potential physical evidence is not tainted or destroyed or potential witnesses overlooked.
    [Show full text]
  • Lifetime Likelihood of Victimization
    U. S. Department of Justice I Bureau of Justice Statistics I Lifetime Likelihood of Victimization by Herbert Koppel people's perception of the meaning of BJS Analyst March 1987 annual rates with respect to their own The Bureau of Justice Statistics lives. If the Earth revolved around the This report provides estimates of the National Crime Survey provides sun in 180 days, all of our annual crime likelihood that a person will become a annual victimization rates based rates would be halved, but we would not victim of crime during his or her life- on counts of the number of crimes be safer. time, or that a household will be vic- reported and not reported to timized during a 20-year period. This police in the United States. These Calculating lifetime victimization rates contrasts with the conventional use of a rates are based on interviews 1-year period in measuring crime and twice a year with about 101,000 For this report, lifetime likelihoods criminal victimization. Most promi- persons in approximately 49,000 of victimization were calculated from nently, the National Crime Survey nationally representative NCS annual victimization rates and life (NCS) surveys a sample of U.S. house- households. Those annual rates, tables published by the National Center holds and publishes annual victimization while of obvious utility to for Health statistics.% The probability rates, and the FBI's Uniform Crime policymakers, researchers, and that a person will be victimized at a Reports (UCR) provide annual rates of statisticians, do not convey to particular age basically depends upon crimes reported to the police.
    [Show full text]
  • Crimes Act 2016
    REPUBLIC OF NAURU Crimes Act 2016 ______________________________ Act No. 18 of 2016 ______________________________ TABLE OF PROVISIONS PART 1 – PRELIMINARY ....................................................................................................... 1 1 Short title .................................................................................................... 1 2 Commencement ......................................................................................... 1 3 Application ................................................................................................. 1 4 Codification ................................................................................................ 1 5 Standard geographical jurisdiction ............................................................. 2 6 Extraterritorial jurisdiction—ship or aircraft outside Nauru ......................... 2 7 Extraterritorial jurisdiction—transnational crime ......................................... 4 PART 2 – INTERPRETATION ................................................................................................ 6 8 Definitions .................................................................................................. 6 9 Definition of consent ................................................................................ 13 PART 3 – PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY ................................................. 14 DIVISION 3.1 – PURPOSE AND APPLICATION ................................................................. 14 10 Purpose
    [Show full text]
  • Feature Films
    NOMINATIONS AND AWARDS IN OTHER CATEGORIES FOR FOREIGN LANGUAGE (NON-ENGLISH) FEATURE FILMS [Updated thru 88th Awards (2/16)] [* indicates win] [FLF = Foreign Language Film category] NOTE: This document compiles statistics for foreign language (non-English) feature films (including documentaries) with nominations and awards in categories other than Foreign Language Film. A film's eligibility for and/or nomination in the Foreign Language Film category is not required for inclusion here. Award Category Noms Awards Actor – Leading Role ......................... 9 ........................... 1 Actress – Leading Role .................... 17 ........................... 2 Actress – Supporting Role .................. 1 ........................... 0 Animated Feature Film ....................... 8 ........................... 0 Art Direction .................................... 19 ........................... 3 Cinematography ............................... 19 ........................... 4 Costume Design ............................... 28 ........................... 6 Directing ........................................... 28 ........................... 0 Documentary (Feature) ..................... 30 ........................... 2 Film Editing ........................................ 7 ........................... 1 Makeup ............................................... 9 ........................... 3 Music – Scoring ............................... 16 ........................... 4 Music – Song ...................................... 6 ..........................
    [Show full text]
  • A Clarification of the Law of Attempted Murder in Illinois - People V
    DePaul Law Review Volume 28 Issue 1 Fall 1978 Article 9 Specific Intent Made More Specific: A Clarification of the Law of Attempted Murder in Illinois - People v. Harris Nancy Lea Barrett Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review Recommended Citation Nancy L. Barrett, Specific Intent Made More Specific: A Clarification of the Law ofttempted A Murder in Illinois - People v. Harris , 28 DePaul L. Rev. 157 (1978) Available at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review/vol28/iss1/9 This Notes is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in DePaul Law Review by an authorized editor of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SPECIFIC INTENT MADE MORE SPECIFIC: A CLARIFICATION OF THE LAW OF ATTEMPTED MURDER IN ILLINOIS -PEOPLE V. HARRIS The essence of the crime of attempted murder is a specific intent to take life. 1 This concept has undergone a subtle but significant change in Illinois law. In a recent decision, the Illinois Supreme Court has sought to define the precise mental element necessary to sustain a conviction of attempted murder. In People v. Harris,2 the court held that "to convict for attempted murder nothing less than a criminal intent to kill must be shown. "3 The significance of this seemingly straightforward holding can be better ap- preciated in light of prior Illinois decisions, many of which have sanctioned attempted murder charges based on something less than intent to cause 4 death.
    [Show full text]