U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics Increasing the Utility of the Criminal History Record: Report of the National Task Force

Findings Recommendations

Criminal Justice Information Policy U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics

Increasing the Utility of the Criminal History Record: Report of the National Task Force

December 1995, NCJ-156922 Contents

U.S. Department of Justice Highlights iii Bureau of Justice Statistics Introduction 1 Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D. Director Task Force findings 4

This report was prepared by SEARCH, Task Force recommendations 14 The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, Francis J. Appendixes 37 Carney Jr., Chairman, and Gary R. Task Force Participants Cooper, Executive Director. The project Federal Bureau of Investigation director was Sheila J. Barton, Deputy List of Nonserious Offenses Director. Jodi M. Hrbek, Robert L. Sample Transmission Format Marx, Terri L. Nyberg and Paul L. for the Interstate Exchange Woodard provided staff assistance for of Criminal History Records this report. Twyla R. Cunningham, Manager, Corporate Communications, Supplement edited this report. Jane L. Bassett, Rap Sheet Presentation Format Publishing Assistant, provided layout and Draft Interim Specification design assistance. The Federal project monitor was Carol G. Kaplan, Assistant Deputy Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Report of work performed under BJS Cooperative Agreement No. 92-BJ-CX-K012, awarded to SEARCH Group, Incorporated, 7411 Greenhaven Drive, Suite 145, Sacramento, California 95831. Contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Bureau of Justice Statistics or the U.S. Department of Justice.

Copyright ® SEARCH Group, Incorporated, dba SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, 1995.

The U.S. Department of Justice authorizes any person to reproduce, publish, translate or otherwise use all of any part of the copyrighted material in this publication with the exception of those items indicating they are copyrighted or printed by any source other than SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics.

Page ii National Criminal History Record Task Force Report Highlights

A number of national-level developments To make informed decisions, the The Task Force recommendations in recent years have demonstrated the need criminal justice system needs complete, for more uniform and readable State accurate, timely, accessible, and easily Each State should have procedure for criminal history records. The content and understandable criminal history record obtaining, and indicating on its criminal format of such records are of increasing information. history records that it transmits inter- importance, given the growing use of rap state, arrest data (including fingerprints) sheets in firearms presale checks and a wide The complexity of the criminal justice and related disposition and corrections range of pre-employment decisions. All system and the large number of agencies data for all arrests or indictments occur- States having a common understanding of that have roles in the processing of ring in the State for all felony offenses the standard rap sheet is important for criminal cases and the custody and and all misdemeanor offenses except criminal justice as well as for authorized supervision of offenders add to the those nonserious offenses for which the noncriminal justice purposes. It is espe- difficulty of establishing complete, Federal Bureau of Investigation will not cially important for users to be able to look accurate, and intelligible criminal history accept fingerprints and related informa- at a rap sheet and quickly determine records. tion. whether particular types of information are contained in it. Increasing numbers of citizens are A State transmitting a record to another being affected by the quality and legibility State or to a Federal agency should en- To address this need, The National Task of criminal history records because of the sure that the following data elements are Force on Increasing the Utility of the expanding uses of these records for provided: Introductory, identification, Criminal History Record was convened to noncriminal justice decisions, such as criminal justice summary, arrest, prose- improve the quality, reliability and licensing and employment eligibility. cutor, court, corrections and executive readability of criminal history records clemency data. exchanged among the States and between The criminal history records now the States and the Federal government. produced by the State repositories differ A State transmitting a record to another The Task Force met over a 2-year period significantly in content and format. State or to a Federal agency should struc- to discuss the utility of existing criminal ture the record in the format of the Model history records, examine the data elements Implementation of the Interstate interstate criminal history record. that currently appear on rap sheets, prepare Identification Index (III) system has a set of findings, and develop a common rap increased the need for uniform criminal Appropriate authorities should imple- sheet for use among the States. history records. ment a nationwide transmission format for the interstate of criminal history Following the completion of the work of Information concerning record subjects records. the Task Force, the Membership Group of that may be relevant for criminal justice SEARCH, the National Consortium for purposes, as well as authorized The model rap sheet Justice Information and Statistics, endorsed noncriminal justice purposes, may exist the report. In addition, SEARCH went on in databases other than the criminal The model rap sheet, presented in an record to advocate all States' compliance history record system. easy-to-read, noncolumnar format, was with the recommendations within 5 years. designed to make the rap sheet easier for Endorsement by other national organiza- State criminal history records increas- users to understand and interpret. The tions directly affected by the recommenda- ingly contain "flags" symbols or set of data elements for the rap sheet is tions is ongoing. notations, such as "F" for felony intended to include all pertinent conviction. Many flags are based on information without overburdening Summary of Task Force findings particular requirements under State law, systems with the collection of extraneous raising a concern that their inclusion on information. Some features of the model All levels of government have interstate rap sheets may cause confusion rap sheet include: demonstrated needs for reassessing the if the basis for the flags is not generally utility of the criminal history record. understood throughout the country or Clearly defined linkages between the defined on each record. arrest and other subsequent activities and State and Federal legislation requires or dispositions on the rap sheet authorizes greater utilization of the criminal history record by criminal justice users.

National Criminal History Record Task Force Report Page iii Sufficient information to allow users to identify the agencies that contributed particular information

A notice of the existence of sealed information that some users may be authorized to obtain

Computer interfaces to enhance the quality and efficacy of the criminal his- tory record.

In addition to the presentation format, the Task Force recommended a standard transmission format to ensure informa- tion from a State can be easily formatted into the model presentation format, even if the contributing State has not adopted the model format itself. This recommen- dation is modeled after the FBI's nation- wide transmission format for the information content of the fingerprint card.

Page iv National Criminal History Record Task Force Report I. Introduction

The Task Force recommended strategies for improving The need for more uniform and disposition reporting.1 The number readable criminal history records was This report sets out the findings and one strategy was a recommendation echoed by the Advisory Policy Board recommendations of the National for the establishment of a high-level, (APB) of the Federal Bureau of Task Force on Increasing the Utility broadly representative task force in Investigation’s National Crime of the Criminal History Record each State to identify needs and issues Information Center (FBI NCIC).3 (“Criminal History Record Task across the population of authorized The State-based APB has provided Force” or “Task Force”). The Task users of the criminal history record. ongoing evaluation of the phased Force was convened under a In its Commentary on this testing and implementation of the cooperative agreement between the recommendation, the Task Force set Interstate Identification Index (III), a Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), out some of the problems that State cooperative State/FBI undertaking to U.S. Department of Justice, and task forces should address: establish a decentralized, national SEARCH, The National Consortium criminal history record system for for Justice Information and Statistics. The state task force should handling interstate and Federal/State The purpose of the Task Force was to strive to improve the quality record requests and exchanges.4 In develop recommendations concerning and reliability of the criminal evaluating the first pilot project of the content of criminal history records history record product; improve that are exchanged among the States accessibility to the product to and to recommend a standard format assure that the courts and other for such records. users have access to criminal history record information in a The need for standards concerning the convenient and timely manner 3 content and format of interstate without payment of fees; The APB has been reorganized and is now known as the Criminal Justice criminal history records has been improve the readability of Information Services (CJIS) APB. demonstrated by several developments criminal history records; and in recent years. For example, in 1992 reform statutorily mandated 4Under the III system, which utilizes the National Task Force on Criminal record retention schedules that a national offender index maintained by History Record Disposition in many States burden courts the FBI, the State central repositories Reporting called for more easily and others with the maintenance provide records in response to interstate and Federal agency needs that currently readable criminal history records. That of aged and redundant criminal are serviced primarily from the FBI’s 2 Task Force was established jointly by history records. centralized files of Federal and State BJS, SEARCH, and the National criminal offender records. Phased Center for State Courts to review testing and implementation of the III criminal case disposition reporting system began in 1980 and continues. Currently, 30 State repositories problems and to make (representing 76 percent of the national recommendations for improving the population) are participating by reporting of dispositions to State making their indexed records available criminal history repositories. That for authorized criminal justice purposes. Task Force was chaired by the Hon. These States are Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Robert C. Murphy, Chief Judge of Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, 1 the Maryland Court of Appeals, and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Report Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, was comprised of senior and of the National Task Force on Criminal Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New nationally recognized State judges, History Record Disposition Reporting, Jersey, New York, North Carolina, U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal State and trial court administrators, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Justice Information Policy Series, by Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, criminal history repository directors, SEARCH Group, Inc. (Washington, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, a director of a pretrial services agency, D.C.: Government Printing Office, June Washington and Wyoming. All of the a prosecutor, and law enforcement 1992). Hereafter, Disposition Task other State repositories have plans and officials. It met three times over a 2- Force report. timetables for participation in III and year period and issued a report that full national participation is expected 2Ibid, p. 15 (emphasis added). to be accomplished by the year 2000. included 19 findings and 10

National Criminal History Record Task Force Report Page 1 the National Fingerprint File (NFF),5 (columnar) format.7 The efforts of adopted by the FBI. The FBI is the APB found that lack of that subcommittee have been closely implementing the new design and the uniformity among State criminal coordinated with the work of the new fingerprint cards are expected to record formats and difficulty in present Criminal History Record Task be in use by the late summer of understanding records with multistate Force by means of continuing 1995. segments has an adverse impact on contacts among the APB, the FBI, the utility of criminal history records BJS and SEARCH, all of whom were Since fingerprint cards play an transmitted through III that represented on the Task Force. In important role in the recording and significantly detracts from the addition, drafts and working reporting of identification information effectiveness of the system.6 documents have been exchanged and arrest information that is included between the two groups. on criminal history records, the Task Pursuant to that finding, the APB’s Force recognized that the format of Identification Services Subcommittee During the past 3 years, the FBI and the FBI fingerprint card, which is addressed the issue of State criminal the APB have also taken steps to widely used and copied by the States, history record formats at its May improve the format of the FBI is of great relevance to the work of 1992 meeting. Two model formats criminal fingerprint card. This effort the Task Force. Efforts have been were discussed: a horizontal was initiated in 1992 by an FBI staff made to ensure that the Task Force’s (noncolumnar) format and a vertical recommendation to add a space on the recommendations concerning the card for the arrestee’s place of content and format of criminal history

citizenship to respond to the statutory records are consistent with the 5Participation in the NFF is the final phase of participation in the III system requirement that the States provide redesigned FBI fingerprint card. by a State criminal record repository. At notice to the Immigration and this level of participation, the Naturalization Service of convictions A final development demonstrating repository undertakes a responsibility of aliens in order to expedite their the need for improved criminal to respond to all authorized III requests deportation in appropriate cases.8 history record formats was the for both criminal justice and noncriminal justice purposes. State inclusion on the SEARCH National repositories in States participating in The APB’s Identification Services Agenda for 1991 of a recommendation the NFF will send only one fingerprint Subcommittee appointed an Ad Hoc for a study concerning the content and card per criminal offender per State to Fingerprint Card Redesign Group to formats of criminal history records. the FBI. They will not send fingerprint make the citizenship change and to The policy-setting Membership cards for second and subsequent arrests of these offenders, and they will not recommend other necessary changes Group and Board of Directors of send any charge or disposition in the FBI card. The Group’s SEARCH are comprised of information for any arrests of such recommendations for a new FBI gubernatorial appointees from each of persons. The FBI will no longer criminal fingerprint card were the States, the District of Columbia, maintain criminal history records about approved by the APB in June 1994 the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, these State and local offenders. Rather, the FBI will maintain an automated and subsequently were and the U.S. Virgin Islands, drawn name index of these offenders (the III primarily from State-level criminal Index) with “pointers” indicating the record system administrators and also State or States maintaining criminal including law enforcement officials history record data about the and representatives of other individuals. The FBI will also maintain in the NFF a single set of fingerprints components of the criminal justice for each indexed offender from each system. On a biennial basis, the State in which the offender has been 7Federal Bureau of Investigation, Membership Group adopts the arrested. The pilot project for this phase National Crime Information Center “SEARCH Agenda for Improving is currently being undertaken in Florida, Advisory Policy Board, Identification Criminal Justice Information North Carolina and Oregon. Services Subcommittee, “Chairman’s Report on Identification Services Management.” This Agenda 6 Federal Bureau of Investigation, Subcommittee” (unpublished, May National Crime Information Center 1992) p. 4. Advisory Policy Board, National Fingerprint File Pilot Project 8Federal Bureau of Investigation, Evaluation Group, “Final Report from Identification Division, “Staff Paper: the November 5-6 Meeting of the Modifying the FBI Criminal National Fingerprint File (NFF) Pilot Fingerprint Card” (unpublished, May Project Evaluation Group” 1992) p. 67. (unpublished, December 31, 1991) p. 3.

Page 2 National Criminal History Record Task Force Report represents a major effort by the agencies) and other criminal history It is the hope of the Task Force that SEARCH Membership to identify record users.10 The Task Force met its recommendations will receive the and formulate solutions to the critical four times over a 2-year period from careful consideration of the FBI, the information management problems May 1993 through March 1995. funding agencies in the U.S. confronting State and local criminal Department of Justice, the Criminal justice agencies. It is intended to The Task Force report Justice Information Services Advisory guide SEARCH activities and to Policy Board, the National Law serve as a vehicle to present the The Task Force discussed a wide Enforcement Telecommunications issues identified to Federal, State and range of issues and concerns related to System, the SEARCH Membership local governments. the content and format of interstate Group, court organizations, and other criminal history records. Those issues appropriate organizations or groups. In July 1991, the Membership Group and concerns are reflected in the Task The Task Force hopes further that adopted the following directive in the Force’s Findings, which are set out in these groups will endorse the area of information law and policy: Section II of this report, and in the recommendations and will approve Commentary to those Findings. their implementation — on a Conduct a study to determine the mandatory basis at an appropriate adequacy of the data stored on the Based on the Findings, the Task time and on an appropriate schedule criminal history record. The Force approved four recommenda- — with respect to all interstate and study should also explore the tions, which are set out (with Federal/State exchanges of criminal potential for adopting a common Commentary) in Section III of this history records. format for criminal history report. Recommendation 1 concerns records among the States.9 the types of offenses that should be The Task Force also strongly included on interstate criminal history encourages State officials to consider Against the background of these records. Recommendation 2 concerns the adoption of the recommendations developments, the Task Force was the data elements or data fields that with respect to records exchanged on convened. It was comprised of should be included on interstate an intrastate basis. Many of the State individuals representing a wide range criminal history records. records currently in use are deficient of interests and perspectives Recommendation 3 sets out a model in content and format, and these concerning the creation, management presentation format for interstate deficiencies detract from the and use of criminal history records. criminal history records, that is, the usefulness of the records to in-state Included were members representing format in which the records are made users as well as from the perspective law enforcement, prosecution, the available to ultimate users. of interstate requesters. Although courts, pretrial services agencies, Recommendation 4 sets out a model there is no intent to require immediate correctional agencies, local, State and transmission format for automated changes in intrastate records, State Federal record system managers, interstate criminal history records, officials are encouraged to look for noncriminal justice agencies that is, the format in which the guidance to the findings and (including Federal records are transmitted from computer recommendations set out in this system to computer system on an report when making future system interstate or Federal/State basis. changes or when taking other actions that affect the content and format of intrastate records.

9SEARCH Group, Inc., “SEARCH Agenda for Improving Criminal Justice Information Management” (unpublished, July 19, 1991). This directive was re-adopted by the SEARCH 10A complete list of Task Force Law and Policy Program Advisory members and staff, and their Committee in February 1994. biographies, is set out at Appendix A.

National Criminal History Record Task Force Report Page 3 II. Task Force findings

Based on its discussions of issues and beyond the needs of criminal justice government is the development of a concerns relating to the content and and other agencies.”12 system which can provide instant format of interstate criminal history criminal history information on records, the Task Force adopted the In the past several years, the Federal potential purchasers of firearms. A following Findings: government has launched several Federal law enacted in 1968 prohibits initiatives that are having a material convicted felons and individuals who Finding 1: A number of effect on how criminal history records fall into certain other categories from are compiled and handled at the local, purchasing firearms.13 The 1993 factors emanating from all State and Federal levels. Such levels of government have initiatives include the Interstate 1318 U.S.C. ¤ 922(g), as amended, demonstrated the need for Identification Index (III) system provides that: mentioned in Section I, which is an reassessing the utility of the “index pointer” system for handling [I]t shall be unlawful for any criminal history record. interstate record requests and person — (1) who has been convicted in any transmissions. When the III system is court of a crime punishable by Commentary: The importance of fully implemented, the FBI will no imprisonment for a term exceeding the criminal history record in longer maintain and disseminate one year; promoting the effective operation of criminal history records that include (2) who is a fugitive from justice; the Nation’s criminal justice system an offender’s complete State criminal (3) [who] is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance has been recognized as a current history record. Instead, the FBI- (as defined in section 102 of the priority by our top national leaders. maintained III system will point Controlled Substances Act (21 In his “Vision of Change in inquirers to the State criminal history U.S.C. 802)); America,” issued February 17, 1993, repositories in which a subject has a (4) who has been adjudicated as a President Clinton called for a criminal history record and those mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution; crime/justice initiative which includes repositories will provide the records (5) who, being an alien, is illegally “a Criminal Records Upgrade program in response to all authorized requests or unlawfully in the United States; to assist States in improving their for both criminal justice and (6) who has been discharged from criminal records infrastructure and noncriminal justice purposes. This the Armed Forces under dishonorable link with the FBI’s criminal ongoing decentralization of State conditions; 11 (7) who, having been a citizen of information databases.” offender records has significantly the United States, has renounced his increased the importance of State- citizenship; or In addressing the “National maintained criminal history records (8) who is subject to a court order Conference on Criminal History and has, as mentioned earlier, that — Records: Brady and Beyond” in heightened the adverse effects of the (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual February 1994, Attorney General inadequacies of such records with notice, and at which such person Janet Reno stated that, “There are respect to content, quality and format. had an opportunity to participate; scores of legitimate reasons for (B) restrains such person from needing to know whether a certain Another initiative which has received harassing, stalking, or threatening individual has ever committed a substantial attention and continues to an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or crime, and if so, what crime ... be a focal point at all levels of person, or engaging in other [including] uses for criminal history conduct that would place an background information [that] go well intimate partner in reasonable fear 12 Bureau of Justice Statistics, of bodily injury to the partner or National Conference on Criminal child; and History Records: Brady and Beyond, (C)(i) includes a finding that such Proceedings of a BJS/SEARCH Group person represents a credible threat 11Press release issued by Executive Conference, U.S. Department of Justice to the physical safety of such Office of the President, Office of (Washington, D.C.: Government intimate partner or child; Management and Budget, “A Vision of Printing Office, January 1995). (ii) by its terms explicitly Change in America” (February 17, Keynote address of the United States prohibits the use, attempted use, or 1993). Attorney General, p. 73. threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or

Page 4 National Criminal History Record Task Force Report Brady Handgun Violence Prevention New Jersey, South Carolina and In 1991, the Department of Justice Act (Brady Act) provides for a waiting Virginia, are actively participating in also implemented the “5 percent set- period of up to 5 days for the sale or this program, and Georgia and aside” program for the improvement transfer of a handgun during which a Michigan are participating on a test of criminal justice records. In background check can be conducted to basis. response to a provision in the 1990 determine whether the individual has a Crime Control Act, the Bureau of felony conviction or a pending felony Another recent Federal law, the Justice Assistance (BJA) issued indictment or is otherwise legally National Child Protection Act of guidelines for a Criminal Justice ineligible to purchase a firearm.14 By 1993 (Child Protection Act), is Records Improvement Program November 30, 1998, the background designed to facilitate fingerprint-based (CJRI) requiring the States to allocate checks are to be performed on an national criminal history record at least 5 percent of the funds received instant basis for all firearm transfers background checks for providers of annually under the Edward Byrne through a National Instant Criminal care for children, the elderly and Memorial formula block grant Background Check System (NICS), disabled persons.15 Among other program specifically for criminal which will be based on the III things, this law focuses upon the record improvement initiatives.17 system. To facilitate the identification reporting and automation of child This amounts on a national basis to of persons with prior felony abuse crime information contained in some $21 million annually that must convictions or pending felony criminal history records in order to be used by the States for criminal indictments by way of III, the FBI make background checks of child-care record improvement projects set out has implemented procedures to notate providers more effective. in State comprehensive criminal or “flag” individuals in the III system record improvement plans approved who have been charged with or To assist the States in upgrading their by BJA. The 5 percent CJRI convicted of felonies in State or central criminal record repositories allocation must continue in each Federal courts. Under these and improving the quality of the State until the State meets standards procedures, system users will employ records they maintain in order to for record quality and automation a special inquiry code, and responses participate more effectively in the levels set out in the program will include a code indicating that the national initiatives mentioned above, guidelines. individual has a felony conviction, the U.S. Department of Justice has in has no felony conviction or pending recent years established programs of Finally, in November 1994, BJS felony arrest, or has a record of Federal assistance to provide grants announced the initiation of the unknown nature and status. Six and technical assistance to the States National Criminal History States, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, and to fund research studies and Improvement Program (NCHIP) to evaluations. One such program is the provide additional assistance to the Criminal History Records States in upgrading their criminal child that would reasonably be Improvement Program (CHRI), history record systems so that they expected to cause bodily injury; to ship or transport in interstate or administered by the Bureau of Justice can participate fully in the III system foreign commerce, or possess in or Statistics (BJS), which allocated $27 and the NICS in order to facilitate affecting commerce, any firearm or million in fiscal years 1990, 1991 national background checks for ammunition; or to receive any and 1992 for discretionary grants to purposes of the Brady Act, the Child firearm or ammunition which has assist the States in automating their been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce. criminal history record systems, Bureau of Justice Assistance, improving arrest and disposition “Improvement of Criminal History In addition, 18 U.S.C. ¤ 922(d) reporting to the State repositories and Record Information and Identification prohibits the sale or disposition of any to the FBI, and identifying and of Convicted Felons: Notice of Program firearm or ammunition to any person “flagging” individuals in State record Announcement,” Federal Register 55 “knowing or having reasonable cause to (May 23, 1990) pp. 21350-51. believe” that the person falls into one systems who have been convicted of 16 of the above categories, or is “under felony offenses. 17 Bureau of Justice Assistance, indictment for ... a crime punishable by Guidance for the Improvement of imprisonment for a term exceeding one Criminal Justice Records, U.S. 15 year.” Pub. L. No. 103-209 (December Department of Justice (Washington, 20, 1993), as amended by Pub. L. No. D.C.: Government Printing Office, 14Pub. L. No. 103-159 (codified as 103-322 (September 13, 1994) December 10, 1991) and Addendum to amended at 18 U.S.C. ¤922, ¤923(a)(3) (codified at 42 U.S.C. ¤¤5119-5119c). the Guidance for the Improvement of and ¤925A) (November 30, 1993). Criminal Justice Records (January 8, 16 Bureau of Justice Statistics and 1992).

National Criminal History Record Task Force Report Page 5 Protection Act and other authorized Pretrial release decisions: All but diversion programs and community purposes. The NCHIP program will three of 54 jurisdictions,20 including sentences are also determined in part begin in fiscal 1995, utilizing a $100 the Federal government, have by the offender’s criminal history million appropriation made under the statutes, constitutional provisions or record. Brady Act. Of this, $88 million will court rules which explicitly require or be made available directly to the permit the consideration of an arrested Correctional classifications: States. Since the purposes for which person’s prior criminal record in Thirty-one jurisdictions have these grant funds can be spent should deciding whether, and under what requirements or authorization to be consistent with those of the 5 conditions, to release the person on consider an inmate’s prior criminal percent set-aside program, BJA has bail or recognizance pending trial or history in making classification issued a revision of parts of the 1991 appeal.21 decisions for security and program CJRI Guidelines in order to provide assignment purposes.24 guidance to State officials in Upgrading of charges: Thirty-eight coordinating the two programs.18 jurisdictions have laws authorizing Probation eligibility: Thirty-nine the upgrading of charges to a higher States, Puerto Rico and the Federal degree of seriousness (for example, government require or authorize Finding 2: Over the last from a misdemeanor to a felony or to consideration of an offender’s prior a higher degree of felony) for second criminal history in decisions decade, State and Federal and subsequent offenses of the same concerning probation.25 legislation has required or or similar or certain specified type.22 authorized greater utilization of Parole eligibility: Forty-six jurisdictions require or permit the criminal history record by Sentencing: All 54 jurisdictions consideration of an inmate’s prior criminal justice users. have one or more statutes or other criminal history record in determining legal provisions, such as court rules, whether to release the inmate on Commentary: In addition to the that mandate or permit consideration parole.26 Federal laws cited in the Commentary of a convicted person’s previous to Finding 1, there are numerous criminal record in deciding on an other State and Federal laws which appropriate sentence, including require or authorize decisionmakers imposition of enhanced sentences for within the criminal justice system to persons with previous convictions, consider the criminal history record of imposition of enhanced terms as the individuals who will be affected habitual criminals or career criminals, by the decisions. The Task Force suspension of a sentence, and took note of a 1991 report published preparation of presentence reports by BJS which cited Federal and State which include the convicted person’s laws in the following areas:19 prior criminal record.23 Eligibility for

the maintenance and use of criminal 18 history records by criminal justice Bureau of Justice Assistance, officials, the numbers of provisions of “Updated Guidance, Improvement of various types described in the report Criminal Justice Records,” U.S. may well have increased. Department of Justice (unpublished, February 23, 1995). 20The 54 jurisdictions included the 19 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Statutes Requiring the Use of Criminal Virgin Islands and the U.S. History Record Information, U.S. government. Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Information Policy series, by Paul L. 21 24 Woodard, SEARCH Group, Inc. Statutes Report, p. 5. Ibid, p. 51. (Washington, D.C.: Government 22 25 Printing Office, June 1991). (Hereafter, Ibid, p. 17 Ibid, pp. 42-46. Statutes Report.) Since State legislators have been active in recent years in 23Ibid, p. 11. 26Ibid, p. 55. enacting or amending laws dealing with

Page 6 National Criminal History Record Task Force Report Possession of a firearm by a Finding 3: The criminal justice 4. Booking (and setting of bail, convicted felon: In addition to the where applicable) Federal law prohibiting a convicted system needs complete, 5. Prosecutor’s charging/review felon from possessing a firearm, 43 accurate, timely, accessible and decision States, the District of Columbia and easily understandable criminal the Virgin Islands have laws 6. Initial appearance, including prohibiting the possession of firearms history record information to setting bail by individuals who have been make informed decisions. 7. Grand jury action convicted of a crime, usually a 8. Pretrial release decision, 27 felony. In some instances, Commentary: The Task Force including alternatives to eligibility to purchase or possess a identified 28 events or decisions in detention and conditions of firearm has been restored to convicted the criminal justice process release felons who have met designated concerning which officials rely upon 9. Arraignment requirements; this information may the use of criminal history record also be reflected on the criminal information as a major basis for 10. Diversions history record. informed decisions. For each of the 11. Trial court disposition actions, the criminal history record 12. Court bind-over decisions The Task Force noted that even in the may be a critical piece of 13. Plea negotiations absence of explicit statutory information, and, as noted in the requirements or authorizations, Commentary to Finding 2, 14. Sentencing (including decisions criminal history records are, by consideration of the record may be a on conditional sentences, practice, used in most States in statutory requirement. Without community service and mental making most of the decisions referred complete and accurate information health commitments) to above. about an individual’s past criminal 15. Probation activity, the appropriateness of the 16. Probation revocation The Task Force also noted that the action or decision is jeopardized. In 17. Appeal “three strikes” legislation recently some instances, liability may attach enacted by some States and the U.S. when a decision is made in reliance 18. Other appellate decisions (for Congress will depend upon the upon an incomplete or inaccurate example, postconviction availability of complete and accurate criminal history record.28 The procedures or release pending records of prior offenses. This criminal justice decisions and events appeal) legislation mandates extremely long identified by the Task Force were as 19. Custody and custodial prison sentences, including life follows:29 supervision, including the sentences with no possibility of 1. Law enforcement investigation screening of visitors to parole, for persons convicted for the correctional facilities 2. Law enforcement patrol activities third time of enumerated serious 20. Parole felony offenses, such as offenses 3. Arrest 21. Parole revocation involving death, injury or the use of weapons. 22. Modifications to sentences 28 Robert R. Belair and Paul L. 23. Pardons and executive clemency Woodard, SEARCH Group, Inc., Liability for Mishandling Criminal 24. Firearms purchase and/or Records (Sacramento, California: possession eligibility SEARCH Group, Inc., April 1984); and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal 25. Dignitary protection Justice “Hot” Files, U.S. Department of 26. Threat analysis Justice, Criminal Justice Information Policy series, by Paul L. Woodard, 27. Hiring for criminal justice SEARCH Group, Inc. (Washington, positions D.C.: Government Printing Office, 28. Certification of juvenile tried as November 1986) pp. 59-68. adult. 29Not all of these events or decisions necessarily occur in all cases, and two or more events may be combined in one 27Ibid, p. 63. appearance in some jurisdictions.

National Criminal History Record Task Force Report Page 7 The Task Force noted that decisions charge information, and may also The difficulty of compiling complete involving juveniles may also take report final case disposition and coherent records of criminal cases place at several steps in the criminal information when arrested and can be increased significantly when justice process. At various points, the fingerprinted persons are subsequently cases are more complex than usual or juvenile may be “waived” to adult released without being formally are not initiated by arrest. Such cases court to stand trial as an adult or, charged. Some law enforcement include those that are initiated by conversely, in States where the filing agencies also report information citation rather than by arrest or that of charges may begin in the adult concerning the pretrial and post-trial originate by direct grand jury system, the juvenile may be returned confinement of offenders. Courts and indictment followed by the issuance to juvenile court for adjudication. The other agencies, including pretrial of a summons rather than an arrest decisions to take either of these services agencies, report information warrant. Other troublesome cases actions is dependent upon a number concerning the release of individuals from a recordkeeping perspective of factors, which frequently are on bail pending trial. Prosecutors include those involving multiple statutorily mandated, and which report information concerning the defendants with multiple charges virtually always include a review of filing of charges, including applicable to some but not all the subject’s prior criminal and/or modifications in the charges referred defendants, including cases that may juvenile record. by the police or decisions to conclude be joined after separate initiation or cases without prosecution. Courts separated after being filed jointly. report pretrial release/confinement Some States have provisions for Finding 4: The complexity of information, information concerning reducing the seriousness of a the issuance of bench warrants for conviction many years after the the criminal justice system and failure to appear or for other conclusion of the sentence. the large number of agencies violations of orders, bind-overs, trial Disposition of a particular case may that have roles in the processing court and appellate court disposition be dependent on the outcome of information, and sentencing another case, such as multiple-case of criminal cases and the information. Correctional agencies, plea bargains. These cases may even custody and supervision of including probation agencies, span jurisdictional boundaries. offenders add to the difficulty incarceration facilities and parole agencies, report information As final examples, pretrial of establishing complete, concerning the custody or supervision release/confinement decisions may be accurate and intelligible criminal and final release of convicted and reviewed and changed, possibly history records. sentenced offenders. several times, as cases progress; defendants released on bail may Commentary: The Task Force With so many agencies involved, it is commit crimes while on release or noted that many agencies are involved extremely difficult to ensure that all may fail to appear for trial, in the processing of criminal cases necessary information is reported to necessitating the issuance of arrest and all of them may have roles in the repository, identified with the warrants; or persons released on reporting information to the criminal appropriate offender record, linked to probation or parole may commit new record repositories for inclusion on the correct cases and charges, and offenses or otherwise violate the criminal history records. Law presented in a clear and understandable conditions of their release, enforcement agencies obtain and manner on criminal history records. necessitating their arrest, contribute arrest fingerprint This is true even when cases are reconfinement or even prosecution on impressions which provide the basis relatively noncomplex and follow the new charges. The Task Force for positive identification of record route that most cases routinely take recognized the difficulty of ensuring subjects,30 a crucial element of the through the criminal justice process. that the content and format of the integrity of criminal record systems. criminal history record are complete These agencies also report textual enough and flexible enough to be able subject identification information, to present a record of these complex arrest event information and arrest cases in a clear and coherent manner.

30A “record subject” is a person on whom a criminal history record is compiled.

Page 8 National Criminal History Record Task Force Report Finding 5: Increasing numbers the year 2000, the figure is projected nonconviction information for at 7.6 million.33 noncriminal justice use. of citizens are being affected by The noncriminal justice decisions and the quality and legibility of actions identified by the Task Force Members also pointed out that, under criminal history records because included the following: some State laws, decisions concerning employment or of the expanding uses of these 1. Appointments and employment by State and Federal agencies occupational licensing eligibility may records for noncriminal justice be made by the State criminal history 2. Occupational licensing decisions, such as licensing and record repository, rather than by the 3. Nongovernmental employment, employer or the requester of the employment eligibility, including the employment of information, thereby possibly requiring the agencies that make child-care providers increasing the repository’s exposure these decisions to be 4. Foster/adoptive parent to liability suits. applications increasingly dependent upon 5. Entitlement programs In regard to the increasing use of complete, accurate, timely and criminal history records for 6. Military recruitment accessible criminal history noncriminal justice purposes, such as 7. Volunteer programs those mentioned above, that record information. 8. Firearms purchase and/or significantly affect the lives of many possession eligibility, when the citizens, the Task Force recognized Commentary: Over the past decade, decision is made by a the importance of procedures now in State legislatures have enacted laws noncriminal justice agency place in every State to provide authorizing an ever-expanding list of 9. Security clearances opportunities for persons who have authorized users of the criminal criminal records to review those 10. Research history record outside of the criminal records and to challenge their accuracy 31 justice system. These laws have 11. Reviews by record subjects and completeness. These procedures consistently recognized that placing 12. Notices to appropriate agencies if generally provide an opportunity for individuals in positions that pose a persons are arrested subsequent to record subjects to request local risk to the life or safety of others is a record checks, such as when an criminal justice agencies to obtain a decision that should reflect knowledge applicant child-care provider is copy of the State repository’s of a person’s previous criminal arrested after being cleared for criminal history records relating to activity. The volume of these types employment. them and to make the records of uses has increased dramatically in available for review followed by the recent years. Figures from the FBI’s Task Force members noted that some initiation of procedures to correct or Criminal Justice Information Services of the decisions and/or uses of the complete the records if appropriate. Division showed that during fiscal criminal history record actually fall With proper precautions to guard 1993, a total of 3.4 million civil somewhere in between the against unauthorized access to records, 32 fingerprint cards were processed. By designations of criminal justice and these review challenge procedures noncriminal justice. Examples help to ensure that criminal history 31 See, for example, Bureau of Justice identified were some types of security record information is kept accurate Statistics, Criminal History Record Information: Compendium of State clearance checks, some firearms and current and help maintain public Privacy and Security Legislation, 1994 eligibility checks, and individual confidence in criminal record systems. Overview, U.S. Department of Justice, reviews by record subjects. Whether a by SEARCH Group, Inc. (Washington, particular use is characterized as D.C.: Government Printing Office, criminal justice or noncriminal January 1995) p. 7. justice may affect the amount of 32U.S. Department of Justice, Federal information the user receives, since Bureau of Investigation, Criminal most State laws place limits on the Justice Information Services Division, release of certain kinds of “Civil Fingerprints Processed by Fiscal Year” (unpublished, 1993). Civil fingerprint cards are submitted for background employment and licensing 33Ibid. Projection based on MITRE purposes. document IAFIS-RS-0010(V3), dated December 1, 1992.

National Criminal History Record Task Force Report Page 9 Finding 6: The criminal Task Force members expressed Finding 7: Implementation of considerable concern that the varying history records now produced content and format of rap sheets the Interstate Identification by the State repositories differ among the States hinders both Index system has increased the significantly in content and criminal justice and noncriminal need for uniform criminal justice decisionmakers who must rely format. upon the record. A number of history records. members identified problems in being Commentary: Although model able to determine what information Commentary: The difficulty of criminal history formats have been was on the rap sheet, where it could deciphering out-of-state records that proposed in the past, adoption of a be found, and what it meant once have differing formats and contents standard format has never been made found. What is considered a has become more serious in recent mandatory, nor have any mandatory “retainable offense” or a “serious years as a result of the guidelines been promulgated offense” for the purpose of including implementation of the Interstate concerning the content of criminal it on the criminal history record is Identification Index (III), a cooperative history records. The State and Federal not consistent across the States. Federal/State system for servicing repositories have been left to adopt Arrests and charges without interstate and Federal/State record their own record formats and their dispositions, or without dispositions searches and record exchanges. In the own approaches concerning the types linked to particular charges, were past, most national searches, for both of offenses that should be included consistently cited as time-consuming criminal justice and noncriminal and the information about those problems for the person attempting to justice purposes, have been directed to offenses that should be presented. The use the information for a decision. the FBI and have been serviced from result has been great diversity in the its centralized files of Federal and criminal history records in use in the In addition, members pointed out that State offenders. In processing these country today, with virtually every varying terminology used among the requests and formulating responses, State’s record differing in at least States is a source of confusion; for the FBI incorporates the State some respects from those of other example, the term “felony” has offender and Federal offender States. different meanings in different information in its files into a jurisdictions. Similarly, the combined standard record format These differences in format, content conclusion of “no record” has no which is familiar to most of the and terminology have made it difficult uniform meaning among the States. criminal justice personnel in the in many cases for out-of-state users Deciphering the content of the record country. and particularly noncriminal justice is sometimes left to the deftness of users to decipher many of the records the interpreter or to the guesswork of The III system, by contrast, is an they receive. Indeed, because few the provider of the information, “index-pointer” system which enables States have conducted assessments of neither of which is a satisfactory criminal justice personnel throughout record user needs or otherwise basis for a decision. the country to obtain criminal history involved their users in the records directly from the 30 State development of the criminal history repositories that are participating as format, criminal justice practitioners record providers. As a result, sometimes have difficulty interpreting practitioners who have in the past records supplied by their own State received out-of-state record repository.34 information in the uniform and familiar FBI format are now receiving some such information in numerous and diverse State formats. Periodic 34See Bureau of Justice Statistics, evaluations of the phased Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report, U.S. Department of Justice, by Robert R. Belair and Paul L. Woodard, SEARCH Group, Inc. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, November 1993) pp. 32-34.

Page 10 National Criminal History Record Task Force Report implementation of the III system Commentary: Task Force members Another driver registry system is the have indicated that personnel who recognized that the criminal history National Commercial Driver receive records with multistate record does not serve all purposes for Registry. It was established pursuant segments often find the records all users and that the criminal history to the Commercial Motor Vehicle difficult to interpret and, further, that record does not exist in a vacuum, but Safety Act of 1986 and serves as a this has had an adverse impact on the rather in a data-rich environment that clearinghouse and depository of utility of the records made available includes numerous other related information pertaining to the through the III system. databases that ought to be utilized as licensing and identification of appropriate. Task Force members operators of commercial motor At present, the III system provides identified some of these other vehicles. Information includes records on an interstate basis databases that are accessed in a variety identification information, name and primarily for criminal justice of ways, including automatic queries address of the operator, physical purposes, with the exception of a that are triggered when the criminal description of the operator, and the three-state project to evaluate the use history file is queried and “pointers” Social Security number of the of the system for handling record to other databases that may be set in operator or other identifying number. requests for all legally authorized criminal history files. These databases noncriminal justice purposes, such as include: Local and State law enforcement employment screening and licensing. systems: Local and State law When, as planned, routine use of the Warrant files: These databases enforcement agencies commonly system is broadened to permit record include local, State, Federal and maintain information systems that requests for authorized noncriminal international warrant systems which contain identification and arrest data justice purposes and additional State are available to law enforcement concerning all persons arrested within repositories begin providing their personnel and which contain their jurisdictions. Many of these records via III for such purposes, the information about persons for whom entries do not qualify for maintenance problem of difficult-to-understand arrest warrants have been issued. The at the State criminal history records will be even more acute local and statewide systems often are repository. For arrests listed in these because the records will be obtained linked (by automatically triggered systems, it may be possible to obtain for use by noncriminal justice inquiries) to the national system associated incident reports, personnel who may not be familiar which contains data concerning investigative reports or other reports with criminal justice case processing warrants for which the entering which may contain and criminal record terminology and jurisdiction will seek extradition of subject/witness/victim data as well as may, therefore, find the records warrant subjects who are apprehended details of the offenses and information extremely difficult to interpret and in other States. concerning the availability of use. mugshots, blood samples or other Driver and vehicle registries: The information that may be useful for State driver registry is another source investigative or other purposes. Finding 8: Information of information that may be useful to criminal history system users. It is a Prosecutor case management concerning record subjects that statewide driver license system that is systems: Many local, State and may be relevant for criminal available to law enforcement users, Federal prosecutors maintain justice purposes, as well as providing on-line access to driver information systems about persons license information, motor vehicle referred for prosecution. These authorized noncriminal justice registration and traffic citation data. systems commonly contain such purposes, may exist in The National Law Enforcement information as identification databases other than the Telecommunications System information, exact charges filed, exact (NLETS) enables authorized users to case status, next scheduled event(s), criminal history record system. make inquiries on out-of-state drivers and names of witnesses, prosecutors, and vehicles. judges and attorneys. These systems may also contain information on persons who have been considered and rejected for prosecution or who are still under consideration for prosecution. Screened access to criminal justice agencies is permitted

National Criminal History Record Task Force Report Page 11 by prosecutor case number. These Pretrial services systems: Finally, The Task Force recognized, however, systems usually cover persons information systems maintained by that some of these related databases previously prosecuted and may pretrial services agencies may contain are not based on fingerprint contain identification information, information about persons who have identification, and a majority of Task filed charges, disposed charges, and had contact with the courts. The Force members concluded that sentences including conditions, and systems usually contain such interstate criminal history records names of prosecutors, judges and information as identification data, should include a cautionary notice defense attorneys involved. crimes for which the person has been that information of this kind to which arrested, convictions, sentences, access is gained through pointers on Court systems: Some local, State release dates and release conditions, the criminal history record should be and Federal court information systems failures to appear, employment used with caution. A substantial may contain information that is history, contacts with the community minority of the members, however, relevant for criminal history and pertinent telephone numbers. affirmatively wanted to include purposes. This includes information nonfingerprint-supported information about persons currently within the While generally it is not desirable to or specific references to such court system, such as exact case include information from these information on criminal history status, next anticipated event(s), and databases on interstate criminal records available to criminal justice the identities of prosecutors, judges history records, some of the agencies. These members concluded and attorneys. These systems may information may be useful to that the importance of such also include information about criminal justice practitioners, and information to investigators, persons previously prosecuted, such thus the databases may be linked to prosecutors and courts outweighs the as charges filed, disposed charges, criminal history systems in various risk of harm that might result from sentences (including sentence ways. For example, in appropriate mistaken identifications. In addition, conditions), and the names of cases, an inquiry of the criminal they found that there was a time- prosecutors, judges and defense history file may automatically trigger saving benefit, as well as the benefit attorneys involved. an inquiry of another related database. of having some information that Or the existence of other possibly otherwise would be unavailable. They Corrections systems: Local, State useful data sources may be referenced noted, however, that some of these and Federal corrections agencies may on criminal history records by databases, such as driver license maintain information systems that pointers such as case numbers, registries, are becoming fingerprint- include subject-in-process data, such agency identification numbers or supported and felt that this as identification information, medical driver license numbers that can be development should be encouraged. information, screening and diagnostic information (for example, mental utilized to track down and obtain the stability for purposes of needed information. In this regard, classification), reason for plans are being developed at the Finding 9: The growing use of Federal level and in some States to custody/supervision, conditions of multiple flags on State criminal custody/supervision, record of all in link the criminal history record and out movements, next scheduled in system, including the III system, history records, many of them or out movement, and expected with databases holding records that based on particular release date. For persons who have may be the basis for finding persons been released from ineligible to possess or purchase a requirements under State law, custody/supervision, these systems firearm on grounds other than a raises a concern that the may contain only the first in and last felony conviction, for example, out movement and the actual release inclusion of flags on interstate mental institution commitments, date and conditions (if any) of that rap sheets may cause confusion release. military discharge records and drug treatment records. if the basis for the flags is not generally known throughout the country or defined on the record.

Page 12 National Criminal History Record Task Force Report Commentary: The Task Force interstate rap sheets and that the issue observed that the use of flags on State of the inclusion of flags based on criminal history records has grown individual State requirements that are dramatically in recent years.35 Many not clearly defined should be of these flags are based on considered with extreme caution. requirements of particular State laws and may be misinterpreted in other States if the basis for the flags is not made clear. Examples of such flags noted by Task Force members include flags relating to child molesters under particular State definitions of child offenses and victim age, flags relating to various categories of youthful offenders or violent offenders, and felony flags based on varying State definitions of felony offenses. While these flags are useful and understood in the States where they are established, they may be a source of confusion if they are included on records transmitted to other States where users may not understand the basis for or meaning of the flags. This raises the concern that users, particularly noncriminal justice users, may place undue reliance on flags, which they may misinterpret, rather than on the substance of the record, possibly resulting in incorrect and unfair decisions relating to employment, licensing or other such actions.

On the other hand, the Task Force acknowledged the utility of flags that are based on definitions that are universally understood. An example is the felony flag established under the FBI’s Felon Identification in Firearms Sales (FIFS) Program, which is based on the Federal definition of “felony” included in the 1968 Gun Control Act. The Task Force determined that only flags of this type should be included on

35A “flag” is a symbol or notation (such as “F” for felony conviction/ indictment) included on criminal history records to alert users to the fact that the record includes particular types of information that may be pertinent for particular purposes.

National Criminal History Record Task Force Report Page 13 III. Task Force recommendations

Based on the Findings set out in information about misdemeanor criminal history records must be Section II, the Task Force approved arrests and dispositions in order to fingerprint-supported, a requirement the following recommendations: distinguish chronic offenders from approved by a majority of the first or infrequent offenders.36 In members of the Task Force. These Recommendation 1: Each many States, second or subsequent members determined that misdemeanor offenses of certain types fingerprinting is necessary to ensure State should have procedures are upgraded by law to more serious the reliability of criminal history for obtaining, and including on offenses, sometimes to felonies. In records and to guard against mistaken its criminal history records that other States, sentencing formulas take identifications. They noted that the prior misdemeanor offenses into fingerprinting requirement is it transmits interstate, arrest data consideration in setting sentences or emphasized in the “FBI/BJS (including fingerprints) and sentence ranges for subsequent Voluntary Reporting Standards for related disposition and offenses. Even in the absence of Improving the Quality of Criminal specific statutory provisions, most History Record Information”39 and is corrections data for all arrests or courts routinely consider a defendant’s reflected in the guidelines for the indictments occurring in the entire prior criminal record, including various Federal grant programs for State for all felony offenses and misdemeanor offenses, in setting improving criminal record data sentences and making decisions quality. In addition, all criminal all misdemeanor offenses concerning eligibility for bail, justice cycles on records exchanged by except those nonserious probation or parole. means of the Interstate Identification offenses not accepted by the Index system must be fingerprint- The Task Force recognized, however, supported. Federal Bureau of that some misdemeanor offenses are As mentioned earlier, however, a Investigation. of limited importance from the substantial minority of Task Force standpoint of most interstate criminal members declined to approve this Commentary: The Task Force history record users. It noted that the requirement. They believed that the noted that there is considerable FBI compiles a list of nonserious usefulness of information about disparity concerning the types of offenses for which it will not accept nonfingerprint-supported case cycles, 37 offenses for which criminal history fingerprints and related information. record information is obtained by the In order to promote uniformity contains information concerning various State repositories and included among the States, the Task Force criminal justice cycles. A cycle begins on their criminal history records. In a concluded that the FBI’s list of with arrest, indictment, citation or few States, arresting agencies are nonserious misdemeanor offenses similar initiation event, and contains information concerning the initiating required to submit fingerprints and should set the standard and that all event, charges, dispositions of those related case data only for felony States should establish procedures for charges, and corrections actions taken offenses. In most other States, the obtaining fingerprints and related in response to those dispositions. fingerprinting and reporting criminal history record information Events within a cycle are linked to the requirements apply to felonies and for all felonies and all misdemeanor cycle initiation by a unique tracking number or numbers. Each cycle is linked specified misdemeanor offenses, offenses except those on the FBI’s to other cycles for the same person by usually the two or three most serious list of nonserious offenses. fingerprint-based positive classes of misdemeanors defined in This recommendation is based upon identification. In this way, all of the the State’s penal code. This often the principle that all “criminal justice information on the record relating to falls short of meeting the needs of cycles”38 included on interstate these criminal justice cycles is considered to be fingerprint-supported. some criminal history record users, 36 notably the courts. Disposition Task Force report, p. 39 Federal Bureau of Investigation 3. and Bureau of Justice Statistics, The 1992 report of the National Task “Recommended Voluntary Standards for 37 Force on Criminal History Record The FBI’s list of nonserious Improving the Quality of Criminal offenses is included at Appendix B. Disposition Reporting noted that, for History Record Information,” Federal Register (13 February 1991) vol. 56, sentencing purposes, courts need 38The criminal history record no. 30.

Page 14 National Criminal History Record Task Force Report primarily misdemeanor offenses, ¥ Misuse subject to civil and concerned, however, that some of the outweighed the risks associated with criminal penalties. information that might be referenced the use of such information, by such pointers on the criminal ¥ Limited to use for which particularly if it is obtained for use by history record is not fingerprint-based requested. criminal justice practitioners, or and that some users might not be authorized noncriminal justice ¥ Make new request if needed for aware of the possible limitations of practitioners, such as the Defense later use. the usefulness of such information. It Investigative Service, who understand ¥ Felony/misdemeanor indicates concluded, therefore, that users should its limitations and can take felony or misdemeanor under the be advised of this possible appropriate steps to authenticate the laws of the sending State. shortcoming and cautioned to use information as necessary. These Interstate Identification Index (III) information obtained from members requested that the report flag (single-state/multistate record) nonfingerprint-supported databases make clear that the fingerprint- with due care. support recommendation applies to Commentary: The recommended interstate records only, not to records notices and cautions are familiar and, Finally, the Task Force noted that made available on an intrastate basis. for the most part, require no felony offenses and misdemeanor comment. The following points need offenses are defined and classified to be stressed, however: differently among the States, with the Recommendation 2: A State result that an offense classified as a felony in one State might not be a transmitting a record to another First, the Task Force noted that, in some States, sealed information may felony in another State. For this State or to a Federal agency be omitted from criminal history reason, the Task Force concluded that should ensure that the following records, even though some sealed the interstate criminal history record should state whether the classification data elements are provided: information may be obtainable in some cases for specified criminal of offenses as felonies or misdemeanors is based upon State — Introductory data justice purposes, such as sentencing. For this reason, the Task Force law, Federal law or some other basis. Name of State concluded that the criminal history This approach is in keeping with the Date of transmission record should include a notice that Task Force’s Finding 9, which raises Notices and cautions: sealed information not shown on the a concern that indicators or “flags” should not be included on interstate ¥ Response is based on criminal record may exist, for the benefit of particular users who may be able to criminal history records unless the history information on file on basis for the flag is generally known (date of transmission) . obtain the information upon request to the appropriate agency. or is set out on the record. ¥ Criminal history information is based on fingerprint Second, the Task Force noted that identification. information on criminal history ¥ Local agencies can provide records might serve as “pointers” to explanation of charges or other databases that might include dispositions, if needed, and may information that is useful to record be able to provide additional users. Examples include driver license information, including sealed numbers that might refer users to information that may be relevant information in the files of available for specified criminal motor vehicle departments and other justice purposes. identification numbers that might ¥ This record may provide pointers point to military databases or to the to other databases that may not files of government agencies such as be fingerprint-supported and the Immigration and Naturalization which should be used with Service. The Task Force concluded caution. that a notice of the possible existence ¥ Use controlled by State and of such information should be Federal regulations. included on criminal history records for the benefit of users. It was

National Criminal History Record Task Force Report Page 15 — Identification data40 by the Immigration and purposes, such as background Name(s) (last, first, middle, suffix) Naturalization Service (INS) to screening of child-care providers, (including aliases)* identify aliens who may be eligible access to this information should be for deportation because of their provided by interfaces with other data State identification number convictions for criminal offenses. systems, such as the National FBI number Inclusion of this data element is Incident-Based Reporting System Fingerprint classification (Henry, consistent with the FBI’s redesigned (NIBRS),41 which collect and record NCIC or AFIS)* fingerprint card. For the same that information, rather than by Sex reasons, “INS registration number” is modifying the historic offender-based set out as a separate data element, nature of criminal history record Race rather than being included as a systems. The Task Force recognized Date of birth* miscellaneous number. the importance of effective criminal Place of birth* history searches for child-care Country of citizenship* Second, because of the growing use applicants and persons who have care of DNA evidence in criminal cases or custody of elderly or disabled Height (current only) and the emergence of databases of persons. It determined, however, as Weight (current only) DNA samples and test data, the Task the Congress apparently did, that such Eye color (current only) Force has included a data element searches can be effectively facilitated Hair color (current only) indicating the existence and location by reference to existing data systems, of DNA samples or test data. For this rather than by requiring fundamental Scars/marks/tattoos; amputations* data element, as well as for entries changes to criminal history record Social Security number* under “Photo available” and “Palm systems and necessitating costly new INS registration number print available,” location would be data collection efforts by criminal Driver license number* indicated by the name and ORI of the justice agencies and criminal record agency holding the information. repositories. Miscellaneous number(s)* Photo available at (location) and Third, after much discussion, the Finally, the Task Force included a (date) * Task Force decided against including recommended data field for Palm print available at (location) the age of the suspect’s victim as a miscellaneous identification data that * recommended identification data might be relevant but might not fit DNA sample or test data available at element. Its decision was based on at under any of the existing data fields. (location) * least two factors. It was noted that, This would provide a space on although recent Federal legislation criminal history records to set out Occupation (date)* has singled out classes of victims for Employer and address (date)* particular attention based on age Residence (date)* (children and the elderly, for 41The NIBRS system is designed to Miscellaneous comments* example), none of this legislation capture detailed, incident-based crime expressly requires that information and arrest data from law enforcement (* May be multiple entries.) about victim age be obtained and agencies throughout the Nation. The recorded in criminal history record system may eventually replace the systems. Indeed, the National Child existing Uniform Crime Reporting Commentary: The identification (UCR) aggregate reporting program data elements set out above are, for Protection Act was amended shortly operated by the FBI. For additional the most part, in common use and after its enactment to ensure that it information, see Federal Bureau of need no comment. The following would not be interpreted to require Investigation, National Incident-Based comments are required, however: new data collection efforts by State Reporting System: Volume 1: Data criminal history record systems. Collection Guidelines (Washington, D.C.: FBI, July 1, 1988); National First, the Task Force has included a Incident-Based Reporting System: new data element, “Country of The Task Force also noted that Volume 2: Data Submission citizenship,” to encourage the criminal history records traditionally Specifications (Washington, D.C.: FBI, collection and reporting of data needed have been offender-based, rather than May 1992); and National Incident- victim-based, and concluded that they Based Reporting System: Volume 3: Approaches to Implementing an should remain so. If information Incident-Based Reporting (IBR) System about victims or other classes of (Washington, D.C.: FBI, July 1, 1992). 40Updated as appropriate. persons is needed for particular

Page 16 National Criminal History Record Task Force Report such potentially useful information as pertaining to criminal activity, Unique case tracking number (see the fact that the offender stutters or including failures to appear and description in Commentary) limps noticeably. It should be noted failures to comply with conditions of Arresting agency offender at this point that the Task Force also bail, probation or parole. identification number (local) recommended that a space for miscellaneous comments be included Such summary data may help some Date of arrest at the end of all of the recommended users to find the record information Date of offense classes of data: arrest data, court data, they need for their particular Arrest name (Last, first, middle, corrections data, and so on. purposes, such as bail-setting or suffix) determining eligibility to purchase a Type of arrest: — Criminal justice firearm, without having to read the Adult/juvenile/juvenile as adult summary data entire record with care. In addition, Arrest charge(s) Felony flag putting users on notice of the existence and extent of certain For each charge or count: Total number of arrests/indictments important information may help to (F/M) Charge sequence number ensure that the information is not Statute citation Total number of convictions (F/M) overlooked. Thus, users may be put Date of last arrest on notice that the offender has a Offense literal description Last reported event (date) history of violent offenses or offenses NCIC offense code involving the use of firearms and thus Failure(s) to appear (number) Felony/misdemeanor indicator should be considered dangerous. Violation(s) of release conditions Arresting agency final disposition44 (number) In the recommended list of summary Bail violations/revocation(s) data categories, “Felony flag” refers to Disposition date (number) an indication of whether the record Miscellaneous comments Probation violations/revocation(s) subject has a prior felony conviction (number) or a pending felony indictment or Commentary: In addition to arrest information. “Total number of data elements now obtained and Parole violations/revocation(s) arrests/indictments” includes all recorded by virtually all criminal (number) criminal case cycle initiations, record repositories, the Task Force Restoration(s) of rights (date(s)) whether begun by arrest, citation or has recommended the inclusion of the Caution(s), with reasons direct indictment followed by the following data elements: Notice(s) of deportation adjudication issuance of a summons. “F/M” refers (date(s)) to an indication of whether the case The unique case tracking number is initiations and convictions were for a number assigned to a criminal Commentary: The Task Force felonies or misdemeanors, with the justice cycle to facilitate the linking concluded that criminal history record classification determined by the most of all reported criminal history record users would benefit from a section serious arrest or conviction offense. information about that cycle. The included at the beginning of each That is, if the offender was arrested number commonly is assigned by law record setting out summary for, indicted for, or convicted of both enforcement agencies at the arrest information about the record. This felony and misdemeanor offenses, the stage in cases that are initiated by would provide immediate notice of classification would be “F” for arrest or by the courts in cases that such important summary data as total felony. originate by indictment and summons number of arrests and convictions, or by the issuance of citations in lieu whether the record subject has a — Arrest data of arrest. The tracking number should felony conviction or a pending felony Arresting agency name be linked to positive identification of arrest or indictment, and the present 42 Arresting agency ORI 43 legal status of the offender (based The number the local agency uses Arresting agency case reference upon the date of the last arrest and the to retrieve information about this number (OCA)43 arrest. date and nature of the last reported event). Also summarized would be 44 Fill in only if the disposition is the offender’s history of 42Originating agency identification final, that is, “released without formal noncompliance with legal orders number. charges filed.”

National Criminal History Record Task Force Report Page 17 the offender by fingerprints. To Experience has proved that case assigned to particular charges. The accomplish this, the tracking number tracking numbers provide a highly Task Force recognizes that many can be preprinted on fingerprint cards effective means to link arrest data, States do not currently have or can be preprinted on disposition court data, corrections data and other procedures for this kind of “charge reporting forms and copied onto the types of criminal history data. A tracking,” and that implementation of fingerprint card by the booking substantial majority of the States such procedures will in some cases officer. Some jurisdictions have used now employ case tracking numbers, require the development of new bar coding or peel-off adhesive strips although not all of them have reporting forms as well as new record to affix tracking numbers to established procedures for the storage and retrieval procedures. fingerprint cards and disposition assignment of tracking numbers in Nevertheless, the Task Force reporting forms. nonarrest cases.45 In addition, the concluded that the importance of importance of the case tracking charge tracking for overall record Procedures to accomplish the number is supported by the Report of clarity justifies the costs of assignment of case tracking numbers the National Task Force on Criminal implementing such procedures. and the linking of those numbers to History Record Disposition fingerprint cards are not difficult to Reporting and by the “FBI/BJS Where charges are not tracked establish in case cycles that begin by Recommended Voluntary Reporting separately from initiation to arrest and booking. Such procedures, Standards” referred to earlier.46 disposition, criminal history records however, have proved more difficult may be ambiguous as to whether all to implement for case cycles that do The type of arrest refers to whether charges in a case have been disposed not begin by arrest. Task Force the offender is arrested as an adult, as of and what the final outcome of the members noted that in some a juvenile or as a juvenile to be case was. Since charges may be added, jurisdictions, 40 percent or more of processed as an adult. Not all States modified or dropped at various points the criminal cases filed in the courts, presently obtain and record this in the criminal justice process, including many felony cases, are information. However, the Task criminal history records may often begun by direct indictment and Force concluded that as juvenile show court dispositions for charges summons or by the issuance of a records become increasingly that do not appear in the arrest or citation. It is vitally important that incorporated into adult criminal charge segments of the records and procedures be established for the history record systems, the may not show dispositions for some assignment of tracking numbers upon designation of the type of arrest will of the charges that do appear there. the initiation of such cases and for become more relevant. The inclusion The user is left to wonder whether the obtaining the fingerprints of the of a field for this type of information record is complete and accurate (and offenders at some point, ideally at the is consistent with the FBI’s the discrepancies can be attributed to offender’s first court appearance. redesigned fingerprint card. plea bargains or other procedures), or whether important disposition The recommended data elements information may be missing, contemplate that multiple arrest erroneous or misplaced. charges and counts will be accounted for individually; that is, that each charge or count will be assigned a charge sequence number as it originates so that subsequent disposition information can be

45 Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1993, U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Information Policy series, by Sheila J. Barton, SEARCH Group, Inc. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, January 1995) pp. 10-11.

46See documents cited at footnotes 1 and 39.

Page 18 National Criminal History Record Task Force Report The charge numbering and tracking — Prosecutor data47 consideration of the charges in light approach recommended by the Task Prosecuting agency name and ORI of available evidence and other Force would solve this problem by factors, a prosecutor may decide to Prosecuting agency case number showing a disposition for each charge file (or obtain indictments for) some shown on the record, whether the For each charge referred to of the charges and drop or modify charge was initiated at arrest or prosecutor, declined or modified others; to add new charges; or to resulted from prosecutor action, grand by the prosecutor, or initiated by decline to prosecute the case. To jury action or court action based on a prosecutor: ensure record clarity, the Task Force bind-over or a plea bargain, or Charge sequence number recommends that all of these conviction on a lesser included Statute citation prosecution actions be reported to the offense. If a record user knows that repository, by the prosecutor or the Offense literal description this approach is in use, a major court, and shown on the criminal source of record ambiguity will be NCIC offense code history record. In this way, every eliminated. If charges and dispositions Felony/misdemeanor indicator charge can be identified at its do not match or if dispositions are Prosecutor action initiation and tracked through to final missing for some charges, and the disposition, wherever these actions Date of action reasons are not clear from the face of occur. the record, the user will know that Miscellaneous comments something is wrong and can take Aside from record clarity, an necessary steps to obtain the missing Commentary: As noted above, a additional reason for reporting and data or seek clarification, as common source of record ambiguity recording prosecutor actions that add appropriate. is the fact that many of the criminal new charges or that modify or decline history formats in current use show police-referred charges is the effect Finally, the recommended data fields arrest charges and final court such actions may have on “felony include a space for indicating the case dispositions, but do not show charge flagging.” If the police agency reports disposition if it is disposed of at the dispositions, modifications or a felony charge to the repository, this law enforcement agency level, that is, additions that occur between those may have the effect of “raising” a flag if the subject is released by the two stages of the criminal justice indicating that the record subject has a arresting agency without formal process. As a result, a record may pending felony indictment and should charges being filed. When subjects are show arrest charges that have no be considered ineligible to purchase a released after arrest (and dispositions and may show court firearm. fingerprinting) without being referred dispositions that do not match any of for prosecution, and the fingerprints the arrest charges. To deal with this If the prosecutor declines to prosecute and arrest data have been forwarded to problem, the Task Force the case or reduces the charge to a the repository, notice of the recommended a charge numbering and misdemeanor, the flag should be disposition must also be sent to the tracking approach that would enable “knocked down” at that point, since repository and included on the the criminal history record to show there is no longer a possibility that subject’s criminal record, to avoid the where each charge was initiated, was the case can result in a felony creation of an arrest event that does modified (if that occurred), and was conviction. If the prosecutor action is not reflect the fact that the case was disposed of — no matter at what not reported and reflected on the disposed of without formal charges stage of the process these actions record, the felony flag may stay up being made. occurred. for as long as a year or more until the court disposition is reported, if it is A point in the process where all of reported. This might have the effect these actions can occur (charge of unjustly depriving the record initiation, charge modification or subject of the right to purchase a charge disposition) is the prosecutor’s firearm during that period. charging/review phase of the case. Conversely, if the prosecutor adds a After review of a case and felony charge to misdemeanor-only police charges, this should have the

effect of raising a flag which would 47If any charge is declined or bar the individual from purchasing a modified by the prosecutor or if any new firearm, pending the outcome of the charge is added. case. The new felony charge should

National Criminal History Record Task Force Report Page 19 be reported by the prosecutor, or by — Court data with the case tracking number, charge the court if an indictment is issued. sequence numbers can ensure that Court name court dispositions are linked to the The recommended data fields for Court ORI proper case cycle and to the specific prosecutor data incorporate the charge Court case number charges to which they relate, thus numbering and tracking approach For each charge filed in court: ensuring record clarity as to the exact described above. Data fields are outcome of the case. Charge sequence number provided for showing prosecutor action if any charges are modified, if Statute citation The Task Force recommends that in any new charges are added, or if any Offense literal description addition to a disposition for each or all charges are declined. NCIC offense code charge, the record should show a sentence for each conviction charge Felony/misdemeanor indicator The Task Force stopped short of and should indicate whether sentences Court action (including lower recommending that prosecutors’ to incarceration are to run court action, trial court action charging decisions be shown on the concurrently with, or consecutively and appellate court action) criminal history record if all charges to, incarceration sentences for other referred by the police are filed Date of action charges or for other cases. If some or unchanged, either by information or Sentence date all of a sentence to incarceration is suspended, this should be shown the issuance of an indictment. Sentence length However, there are good reasons why clearly, and if a sentence includes Term suspended such prosecutor decisions should be both incarceration and probation, this 48 reported routinely to the repository Probation type and period should be indicated. In addition, if the and stored for appropriate use, even if Amount of fine court delays the entry of judgment and/or the imposition of sentence and not shown on the criminal history Amount of restitution record. First, the repository would be places the offender on probation or Failure(s) to appear (date(s))* provided with the date of filing, the some other form of conditional prosecutor case number, the identity Violation(s) of release conditions release, the record should reflect this of the court and the court case (date(s))* action and should show whether the number. This information could Probation violation(s)/ revocation(s) offender successfully completed the facilitate later efforts to obtain the (date(s))* probationary period or whether judgment and sentence were court disposition if it is not received Miscellaneous comments within a reasonable time frame. subsequently entered as a result of the (* May be multiple entries) Second, the notice of prosecutor offender’s failure to comply with filing would indicate that the case is conditions set by the court. Commentary: The recommended under active prosecution for purposes data fields for court data reflect the of State laws that prohibit the Numerous members of the Task charge numbering and tracking dissemination of arrest-only Force commented on the usefulness approach described earlier. Thus, it is information after a specified time of information concerning the failure recommended that a final court unless it can be shown that the case of offenders to appear as ordered or to disposition be shown for each charge is still under prosecution. comply with conditions of release on filed in court, utilizing the charge bail or probation. Such information sequence number assigned when the is of great value to courts, for charge was initiated. If a charge is example, in connection with reduced by the court — as a result of subsequent decisions concerning bail conviction on a lesser included and sentencing. For this reason, the offense or by acceptance of a plea Task Force recommends that failures bargain, for example — this action to appear and failures to comply with would also be shown. In combination bail conditions or probation conditions be shown on criminal history records. In addition, if bail or 48 Indicates whether probation is probation is revoked as a result of informal (unsupervised) or involves formal supervision by probation such violations, this should of course officials. be shown.

Page 20 National Criminal History Record Task Force Report Although information concerning the Where the lower court simply binds — Corrections data failure of offenders to pay fines and over all charges without modification, For each custody or supervision restitution is useful to courts and to there appears to be no need to show segment (probation, jail, parole, other criminal justice personnel, such this action on the record. The work release, recommitment, etc.): as bail agencies, the Task Force did information should be reported to the Corrections agency name not recommend specific data fields for repository, however, for the same such information. However, such reasons noted earlier for reporting Corrections agency ORI information may be reported as the prosecutor filings. Such reporting Corrections agency offender reason for probation or parole provides the repository with identification number49 revocation or may be cited by the information that may be useful later Reception date court as the basis for issuance of a for obtaining missing dispositions Term of custody/supervision bench warrant. Where the information and indicates that the case is still is reported to the repository, it could under active prosecution for purposes Release date and type of release: be shown in the data field for of applying so-called “one-year” Transferred, paroled, “miscellaneous comments.” dissemination laws applicable to conditionally released, release of information about arrests unconditionally released, escaped, The Task Force recommends the with no recorded dispositions. absconded, deceased or executed inclusion on the criminal history Name of probation/parole agency record of appropriate information If a case is appealed, this should be to be notified if subject is concerning the actions of all courts shown and, of course, the decision of detained or arrested involved in processing a case, the appellate court should also be Miscellaneous comments including lower courts, felony trial shown. Where the case is appealed, Note: If the court segment is courts and appellate courts. Many and considered by the appellate court, missing from a case, include the cases involve both felony and on grounds unrelated to specific following additional information as misdemeanor charges. In some charges, the appellate court decision part of the initial jurisdictions, all such charges may be can be shown on the criminal history custody/supervision reception: considered first by a lower court, such record without the inclusion of as a municipal court or a district court charge-specific references. Where the Committing court name and ORI empowered to try only misdemeanor appellate decision relates specifically Committing court case number charges. This court may “bind over” to one or more charges, however, this Conviction offense(s) all of the charges to the felony trial should be clearly indicated on the Commitment term court. During this process, some of record. Any additional comments the charges may be dropped or necessary to clarify the effect of the Commentary: The recommended modified. This lower court may also appellate court action can be set out data elements for corrections data try the misdemeanor charges and bind under “miscellaneous comments.” provide for showing the identity of over the felony charges to the higher the corrections agency, the court. The Task Force recognized that in identification number assigned by the some States there are no procedures agency to the offender, and the date of In other jurisdictions, all cases, for appellate courts to report reception, term, date of release and including cases involving only felony information to the repositories. In type of release for all types of custody charges, are considered first by a lieu of the establishment of such or supervision. This includes jail, lower court. This court may simply procedures, appellate court data may imprisonment (including initial bind over all of the charges to the be reported by the trial courts. Where commitment to a reception and felony trial court. In some inmates are released from diagnostic center and later transfer to jurisdictions however, this court may incarceration through writs of habeas other facilities), supervised probation, modify or dismiss some or all of the corpus or where sentences are parole, conditional release, charges. modified through postconviction recommitment after parole or release proceedings, such information may be revocation, unconditional release, The Task Force recommends that all reported by corrections agencies. escape, absconding, recommitment such lower court actions that have the effect of modifying or disposing of charges be reported to the repository 49 The number the agency uses to and shown on the criminal history identify the individual for its record by charge sequence number. recordkeeping purposes.

National Criminal History Record Task Force Report Page 21 following escape or absconding and — Executive clemency data The Task Force recognized that many recapture, death and execution. Name of agency or official State repositories are not now collecting and recording all of the Action (pardon, commutation of In addition, in cases in which items of information included on the sentence, restoration of rights, etc.) information concerning a corrections list, particularly release violation reception is received by the repository Date of action information, prosecutor filings, but no court conviction and sentence Miscellaneous comments appellate court data and executive information has been received, the clemency data. State repositories also Task Force recommended including Commentary: Persons convicted of may not be obtaining and recording information in the corrections criminal offenses are sometimes dispositions for each charge in segment of the record showing the pardoned or their sentences are multiple-charge cases. The identity of the committing court, the commuted. In addition, rights lost as recommended data elements and the committing court case number, the a result of conviction, such as the model formats shown in the next conviction offense or offenses, and right to vote or to purchase or section of the report, the commitment term. This possess a firearm, may be restored Recommendation 3, are intended to information typically is reported to under certain circumstances. The Task show how the recommended case the repository on the correctional Force’s recommendations provide for processing information should be fingerprint card submitted after prison showing actions of this type on the presented by those repositories that reception or by other reporting criminal history record. are collecting all of it. Other methods. Including the information in repositories are encouraged to the corrections segment of the record, establish reporting procedures and if there is no trial court segment, will Recommendation 2 summary make other changes necessary to provide users with the most commentary: The data elements obtain all of the information in order important missing court information approved by the Task Force for to be able to include it on their and with the means to contact the inclusion on a model interstate rap interstate rap sheets at some time in committing court to obtain any other sheet reflect the needs of criminal the future, such as when reporting needed information. justice practitioners, as well as those procedures and forms are modified or of noncriminal justice agencies that when significant system upgrades are obtain criminal history records for a undertaken. variety of legally authorized purposes. They comprise the information to be included on an offender’s criminal history record in order to ensure accurate identification of the offender and to indicate the current status of criminal cases involving the offender that are still active and the unambiguous outcome of prior cases that have been concluded.

Page 22 National Criminal History Record Task Force Report Recommendation 3: A State transmitting a record to another State or to a Federal agency should structure the record in the following format:

— Model interstate criminal history record

STATE X CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORD

Date Transmitted: March 22, 1995

This record is provided in response to your request. Use of the information contained in this record is governed by State and Federal laws and regulations. Misuse of any information, including release to unauthorized agencies or individuals, may be subject to civil or criminal penalties.

The response is based upon a search using the fingerprints and/or identification data you supplied. You are cautioned that searches based solely on name and non-unique identifiers are not fully reliable. If based on identification data only, additional information may be obtained by submission of the request subject’s fingerprints.

The response is based upon fingerprint-supported criminal history record information in the files of the State X Criminal Identification Bureau on this date. Since the Bureau’s files are revised as new information is received, please request an updated record for any subsequent needs. If explanation of any information is needed, please contact the agency identified as the contributor.

Additional information, including sealed information, may be available in the files of State or local criminal justice agencies identified in this record or in the files of other agencies such as departments of motor vehicles. Some of this information may not be fingerprint-supported and should be used with caution.

Classification of offenses as felonies or misdemeanors is based upon offense classifications set out in the State X penal code, Title 28 of the Revised Statutes (“RS”).

THIS IS A PORTION OF A MULTISTATE RECORD. ADDITIONAL CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORD INFORMATION IS INDEXED IN NCIC-III FOR OTHER STATE OR FEDERAL OFFENSES

IDENTIFICATION DATA

Name : Aliases : John M. Schultz John Martin Smith John Martin Schultz John M. Smith, Jr.

National Criminal History Record Task Force Report Page 23 Sex : Race : Date of Birth : Height : Male White June 8, 1966 6 ft. 2 in. June 6, 1968

Weight : Hair : Eyes : Scars, Marks, Tattoos, Amputations : 184 lbs. Brown Blue Scar upper left arm. Tattoo right bicep: “Born to Lose”

Place Born : Citizenshi p: Fingerprint Class : Central City, State X US NCIC Toronto, Canada Canadian CO 12 10 PI 12 17 CO 12 17 16

State Ident. No. : FBI No. : Soc. Sec. No. : SA123456J 1233543H 212 36 7245 212 46 7245

Driver Lic. No. : INS Reg. No . Misc. No.: SX-1234598AD6 86-3257PR Plumbers Union 327256 SY-3212345AF7 USCG - 9876543R

Palm Print Avail : Photo Avail : DNA Sample Avail : State X Dept. of Justice State X Dept. of Justice State X Dept. of Justice Central City PD, State X Central City PD ORI SA13685432 FBI CJIS, Clarksburg, WV

Occupation : Employer : Plumber (Feb. 14, 1992) City Heating, 123 Main St., Central City, State X (Feb. 14, 1992) Electrician (Mar. 3, 1993) Star Electrical Co., No. 7 City Ctr., Farmville, State Y (Mar. 3, 1993)

Residence : 3021 W. Atlas St., Central City, State X (Feb. 14, 1992) 925 Cayuga Ave., Farmville, State Y (Mar. 3, 1993)

Miscellaneous Comments: AFIS fingerprints available, State X Dept. of Justice. Subject stutters, limps.

Page 24 National Criminal History Record Task Force Report CRIMINAL JUSTICE SUMMARY DATA

Felony Convictions: 3 Total No. Arrests/Indictments: 6 (6 Felony, 0 Misdemeanor) Total No. Convictions: 3 (3 Felony, 0 Misdemeanor) Date of Last Arrest: March 3, 1993 Last Reported Event: Received June 14, 1993, State X State Prison, Central City, 25 yrs. without parole Failure to Appear: 1 Violation of Release Conditions: 1 Bail Revocation: 1 Probation Revocation: 1 Parole Revocation: 1 Caution: Convicted of violent offenses; Convicted of firearms-related offenses

------

C RIMINAL H ISTORY D ATA

C YCLE N O . 1

A RREST /C HARGE D ATA

Name Used: John M. Schultz Date of Arrest: June 6, 1983 Arrest Type: Juvenile as Adult Date of Offense: June 5, 1983 Case Tracking No.: 83-132674567 Arresting Agency: Central City PD ORI SA12343210 Arresting Agency Case No.: 83-12367J Arresting Agency Offender Ident. No.: 367425C Arrest Charges: 01 ARMED ROBBERY/FIREARM NCIC 1204 RS 28-12345(c) Class A Felony 02 CARRYING CONCEALED WEAPON, HANDGUN NCIC 5202 RS 28-2367(b) Class C Felony

C OURT D ATA

Court: Farm County Cir. Ct. ORI SA98764321 Court Case No.: 83CR3264 Failure to Appear/Bail Revoked: July 12, 1983 Bench Warrant Issued: July 13, 1983

Court: Farm County Cir. Ct. ORI SA98764321 Court Case No.: 83CR3264 Charges Disposed of: 01 ARMED ROBBERY/FIREARM NCIC 1204 RS 28-12345(C) Class A Felony Disposition: Convicted on Guilty Plea Disposition Date: Nov. 22, 1983 Sentence: 4 yrs. State Prison (suspended); 6 mos. Farm County Jail; 3 1/2 yrs. Probation. Restitution to victim $750. Sentence Date: Nov. 29, 1983

National Criminal History Record Task Force Report Page 25 02 CARRYING CONCEALED WEAPON, HANDGUN NCIC 5202 RS 28-2367(B) Class C Felony Disposition: Dismissed Disposition Date: Nov. 22, 1983

C ORRECTIONS D ATA

Agency: Farm County Jail ORI SA32764328 Inmate Name: John M. Schultz Inmate Ident. No.: FC 83-2246J Received: Nov. 22, 1983 Term: 6 mos. Released to Probation: May 21, 1984

Agency: Farm County Cir. Ct. Probation Dept. ORI SA32764233 Offender Name: John M. Schultz Offender Ident No.: FCP 327-84-J Received: May 22, 1984 Term: 3 1/2 yrs. Probation Revoked: Nov. 21, 1984. Failure to Pay Restitution; Violation of Probation Conditions

Agency: State X State Prison, Central City ORI SA33684293 Inmate Name: John M. Schultz Inmate Ident. No.: SPM332624 Received: Dec. 2, 1984 Term: Remainder of 4 yrs. from Nov. 29, 1983 Released on Parole: July 6, 1987

Agency: State X Parole Bd., Central City ORI SA32678911 Offender Name: John M. Schultz Agency Offender Ident. No.: PB 36294-87 Received: July 7, 1987 Term: Remainder of 4 yrs. from Nov. 29, 1983 Unconditionally Released: Nov. 29, 1987

C YCLE N O . 2

A RREST /C HARGE D ATA

Name Used: John Martin Smith Date of Arrest: Dec. 12, 1987 Arrest Type: Adult Date of Offense: Dec. 12, 1987 Case Tracking No: 87-235764832 Arresting Agency: Central City PD ORI SA12343210 Arresting Agency Case No.: 87-2374 Arresting Agency Offender Ident. No.: 367425C Arrest Charges: 01 AGGRAVATED ASSAULT, FIREARM NCIC 1304 RS 28-324(C) Class C Felony 02 CARRYING CONCEALED WEAPON, FIREARM NCIC 5202 RS 28-2367(B) Class C Felony

Page 26 National Criminal History Record Task Force Report P ROSECUTION D ATA

Prosecuting Agency: Farm County Prosecutor ORI SA37674897 Prosecuting Agency Case No.: 87CR1367D Date of Action: Jan. 13, 1988 Charge 02 Changed to: Possession of Firearm By Felon NCIC 5203 RS 28-2368(C) Class B Felony

C OURT D ATA

Court: Farm County Cir. Ct. ORI SA98764321 Court Case No.: 87CR5782 Charges Disposed of: 01 AGGRAVATED ASSAULT, FIREARM NCIC 1304 RS 28-324(c) Class C Felony Changed to: Simple Assault NCIC 1313 RS 28 324(a) Class D Felony Disposition: Convicted on Guilty Plea Disposition Date: May 13, 1988 Sentence: 1 to 3 yrs. Sentence Date: May 22, 1988 02 POSSESSION OF FIREARM BY FELON NCIC 5203 RS 28-2368(C) Class B Felony Changed to: Possession of Unlicensed Firearm NCIC 5210 RS 28-325(b) Class B Misdemeanor Disposition: Convicted on Guilty Plea Disposition Date: May 13, 1988 Sentence: $100 fine Sentence Date: May 22, 1988

C ORRECTIONS D ATA

Agency: State X Prison, Central City ORI SA33684293 Inmate Name: John Martin Smith Inmate Ident. No.: SPM32624 Received: May 14, 1988 Term: 1-3 yrs. Released on Parole: Oct. 15, 1989

Agency: State X Parole Board, Central City ORI SA32678911 Offender Name: John Martin Smith Offender Ident. No.: PB36294-89 Received: Oct. 21, 1989 Term: Remainder of 1-3 yrs. Parole Revoked: Jan. 3, 1990

Agency: State X State Prison, Central City ORI SA33684293 Inmate Name: John Martin Smith Inmate Ident. No.: SPM32624 Received: Jan. 8, 1990 Term: Remainder of 1-3 yrs. Released at Sentence Expiration: May 21, 1991

National Criminal History Record Task Force Report Page 27 ------

C YCLE N O . 3

A RREST /C HARGE D ATA

Name: John Martin Schultz Indicted: Farm County Cir. Ct. Grand Jury ORI SA32467321 Date of Indictment: July 31, 1991 Date of Offense: July 1, 1991 Case Tracking No.: 91-003265433 Summons Issued: July 31, 1991 Charges: 01 RAPE, FIREARM NCIC 1101 RS 28-723B Class A Felony 02 POSSESSION FIREARM BY FELON NCIC 5203 RS 28-2368(C) Class B Felony

C OURT D ATA

Court: Farm County Cir. Ct. ORI SA98764321 Court Case No.: 91 CR322 Charges Disposed of: 01 RAPE, FIREARM NCIC 1101 RS 28-723B Class A Felony Disposition: Found Not Guilty by Jury Disposition Date: Sept. 10, 1991 02 POSSESSION OF FIREARM BY FELON NCIC 5203 RS 28-2368(C) Class B Felony Disposition: Found Not Guilty by Jury Disposition Date: Sept. 10, 1991

------

C YCLE N O . 4

A RREST /C HARGE D ATA

Name Used: John M. Schultz Date of Arrest: Oct. 3, 1991 Arrest Type: Adult Date of Offense: Oct. 2, 1991 Case Tracking No.: 91-12467524 Arresting Agency: Central City PD ORI SA12343210 Arresting Agency Case No.: 91-2467 Arresting Agency Offender Ident No.: 367425C

Arrest Charges: 01 BURGLARY/FORCED ENTRY RESIDENCE NCIC 220 RS 28-468(D) Class B Felony 02 POSSESSION STOLEN PROPERTY NCIC 2804 RS 28-63(K) Class A Misdemeanor

Page 28 National Criminal History Record Task Force Report PROSECUTOR DATA

Prosecuting Agency: Farm County Pros. ORI SA37674897 Prosecuting Agency Case No.: 91-CR-4267 Disposition: Declined to Prosecute all Charges Disposition Date: Oct. 5, 1991

------C YCLE N O . 5

A RREST /C HARGE D ATA

Name Used: John M. Smith, Jr. Date of Arrest: Feb. 14, 1992 Arrest Type: Adult Date of Offense: Feb. 12, 1992 Case Tracking No.: 91-12467325 Arresting Agency: Central City PD ORI SA12343210 Arresting Agency Case No.: 91-0032 Arresting Agency Offender Ident. No.: 36774250 Arrest Charges: 01 POSSESSION STOLEN VEHICLE NCIC 2407 RS 28-2264 Class D Felony Disposition: Released Without Prosecution Disposition Date: Feb. 15, 1992

------

C YCLE N O . 6

A RREST /C HARGE D ATA

Name Used: John M. Schultz Date of Arrest: Mar. 3, 1993 Arrest Type: Adult Date of Offense: Mar. 3, 1993 Case Tracking No.: 93-367428967 Arresting Agency: Farmville PD ORI SA32642823 Arresting Agency Case No.: C93421 Arresting Agency Offender Ident. No.: C324274 Arrest Charges: 01 ARMED ROBBERY WITH FIREARM NCIC 1204 RS 28-12345(C) Class A Felony 02 POSSESSION FIREARM BY FELON NCIC 5203 RS 28-2768(C) Class B Felony 03 DAMAGE TO PRIVATE PROPERTY NCIC 2902 RS 28-313a Class B Misdemeanor 04 TRESPASSING NCIC 5707 RS 28-103 Class D Misdemeanor

National Criminal History Record Task Force Report Page 29 C OURT D ATA

Court: Farm County Dist. Ct. ORI SA98463224 Court Case No.: 2367-CR-93 Charges Disposed of: 01 ARMED ROBBERY WITH FIREARM NCIC 1204 RS 28-1234(C) Class A Felony Disposition: Bound Over to Cir. Ct. Disposition Date: May 10, 1993 02 POSSESSION OF FIREARM BY FELON NCIC 5203 RS 28-2768(C) Class B Felony Disposition: Bound Over to Cir. Ct. Disposition Date: May 10, 1993 03 DAMAGE TO PRIVATE PROPERTY NCIC 2902 RS 28-313a Class B Misdemeanor Disposition: Dismissed Disposition: Mar. 10, 1993 04 TRESPASSING NCIC 5707 RS 28-103 Class D Misdemeanor Disposition: Dismissed Disposition: Mar. 10, 1993

C OURT D ATA — CIRCUIT COURT DATA NOT REPORTED

C ORRECTIONS D ATA

Agency: State X State Prison, Central City ORI SA33684291 Inmate Name: John M. Schultz Inmate Ident. No.: SPM32624 Received: June 14, 1993 Committing Court: Farm County Cir. Ct. ORI SA98764321 Committing Court Case No.: 93CR42732 Conviction Offenses: Armed robbery; possession of firearm by felon; repeat violent offender Commitment Term: 25 yrs. without parole

APPELLATE COURT DATA

Court: State X Court of Appeals ORI SA 98665431 Court Case No: 93CR221 Decision: Judgment and Sentence as Repeat Violent Offender Confirmed Date of Decision: Oct. 22, 1993

Page 30 National Criminal History Record Task Force Report Commentary: After considering The recommended format sets out all As noted above, the six case cycles numerous models in both columnar case information in chronological are intended to illustrate how the and noncolumnar format, the Task order with the oldest criminal justice recommended criminal history data Force voted to recommend one cycle shown first and the most recent elements would appear when set out noncolumnar model. Task Force cycle — and the most recent entry in the recommended format. The case members determined that a within that cycle — shown last. cycles also are structured to illustrate noncolumnar format is easier to read several common case processing than a record arranged in columns and The model sets out hypothetical variations, including simple and that such a format also avoids the identification data, criminal justice straightforward cases as well as more extensive blank spaces, cramped summary data and criminal history complex cases. These case cycles spacing and awkward horizontal data intended to illustrate how the data illustrate most of the special alignment that characterize many elements recommended by the Task situations singled out for comment columnar layouts. Force would appear when structured elsewhere in the report, but there are in the recommended format. of course many other case processing In addition to the use of familiar Examples of all of the recommended variations that are not illustrated — structural formatting methods such as notices and cautions are shown on the that is, other ways that case cycles indenting, single- and double-spacing cover page and examples of all of the can progress through the criminal and underlining, the recommended recommended identification data justice system from initiation to final model uses upper- and lower-case elements are set out. Multiple entries disposition and release of the letters, large and small capital letters, are shown as examples for all of the offenders from official supervision. It italics and bold type to emphasize identification data elements for which is hoped that by showing how the data groupings and data field titles and multiple entries are permitted — recommended data elements would to highlight important data entries. aliases, dates of birth, places of birth, appear in a variety of case cycle The Task Force believes that this etc. The entry under “Name” is the contexts, the model will provide kind of formatting makes a record name used in the first criminal justice sufficient guidance concerning how easier to read and, in particular, makes cycle and other names used by the other case processing actions should it easier to scan a record and find offender in subsequent case cycles are be shown to conform to the general certain kinds of data quickly. The shown as aliases. All of these alias approach of the recommended format. Task Force recognizes, however, that examples appear under “Name Used” most States cannot produce this style in one or more of the six case cycles Case Cycle No. 1 begins with the of record at present and, indeed, that set out under “Criminal History arrest of the offender as a juvenile for some State systems are limited to the Data.” a serious felony offense that is to be use of all capital letters. It encourages tried in the adult system. Thus, the those States that can do so to use the Every type of recommended criminal arrest type is “Juvenile as Adult.” varied fonts and type styles illustrated justice summary data is illustrated. in the model. Those States that These entries summarize, and provide In this case, the prosecutor sought cannot fully emulate the model are a count of, the criminal history data and obtained indictments for the same encouraged to use whatever font and entries that appear in the six charges as those reported at arrest, so type style resources they have hypothetical case cycles. no prosecutor data are shown. Note available and to strive to add that there is a “failure to appear” entry additional capabilities of this kind to under court data, and related entries their systems as soon as they can. indicate that bail was revoked and an arrest warrant was issued. Pursuant to a plea bargain, hypothetically, the offender pleaded guilty to the armed robbery charge and the weapon charge was dismissed. As

National Criminal History Record Task Force Report Page 31 part of the agreement, his 4-year Case Cycle No. 4 illustrates a Recommendation 4: prison sentence was suspended and he scenario in which the prosecutor was given a split jail/probation declines to prosecute the case. This Appropriate authorities should sentence. He was also ordered to pay final disposition is shown under implement a nationwide restitution. However, after release on prosecutor data. transmission format for the probation, he violated his release conditions and failed to pay Case Cycle No. 5 illustrates a release interstate transmission of restitution as ordered. His probation by the arresting agency without criminal history records. was revoked and the prison sentence referring the case to the prosecutor. was reinstituted and he was sent to This final disposition is shown under Commentary: The Task Force the State penitentiary. He was later arrest/charge data. noted that some States already provide released on parole and then criminal history data to their unconditionally released upon Case Cycle No. 6 begins by an arrest intrastate users in several different expiration of the parole period. that results in both felony and presentation formats depending on misdemeanor charges. All charges are the purpose for which the data was In Case Cycle No. 2, the offender was filed unchanged by the prosecutor, so required. For example, a record arrested under an alias, which appears no prosecutor data are shown. The formatted to look like a business under “Name Used” and also under the case goes first to a lower court, the letter may be appropriate in response list of aliases in the identification district court, where the misdemeanor to certain applicant inquiries while a segment of the record. In this charges are dismissed and the felony record formatted to look more like a hypothetical, the prosecutor charges are bound over to the circuit conventional rap sheet might be discovered the prior felony conviction court, the felony trial court. The optimal in response to other types of and upgraded the weapons offense to offender is convicted in the circuit inquiry. While concluding that the possession of a firearm by a felon. court on both of the felony charges presentation format addressed in the This is shown under prosecutor data. and sentenced as a repeat violent previous recommendation is an In court, pursuant to another offender to 25 years without parole. excellent all-purpose presentation agreement, both charges were reduced However, in the hypothetical, the format, the Task Force did not want and the offender pleaded guilty to both circuit court data are not reported to to preclude States from continuing to and was sentenced to a prison term the repository. When the custody experiment in formats which may and a fine. After release on parole, he fingerprint card subsequently arrives satisfy their intrastate users’ needs violated his parole conditions and from the prison, the repository enters even more fully. parole was revoked. He was the usual corrections reception data reimprisoned and served out the term. and, since the court segment is Furthermore, the Task Force missing, enters the additional data recognized that different record Case Cycle No. 3 illustrates a case elements recommended by the Task content is appropriate in response to that began by indictment and the Force: committing court identity and different types of intrastate inquiry. issuance of a summons. Since the ORI, committing court case number, For example, some applicant indictment is the charge initiation conviction offenses and commitment inquiries may allow a full criminal document, the information is shown term. history response, while other types under “arrest/charge data.” In the may allow a response concerning hypothetical setting, the jurisdiction The offender appealed the conviction only felony charges, or only felony has procedures for issuing tracking and sentence, challenging the State’s convictions. In the same way, certain numbers and obtaining fingerprints in new “three strikes” law. Notice of the classes of users may be uninterested such cases, so the case data are filing of the appeal should have been in and distracted by receiving fingerprint-supported and can be reported to the repository by the information about available palm shown on the interstate criminal circuit court as part of the case prints and DNA samples. Under history record. The case ends in a not disposition, but was not. The present practices, the State which guilty verdict by the jury. appellate court decision was reported provides the interstate criminal and is shown. history information is expected to provide all data available; the burden falls on the requesting/receiving State to edit the information as necessary to meet the user needs and intrastate information dissemination

Page 32 National Criminal History Record Task Force Report restrictions. The Task Force wanted Under this recommendation, each to assure that this content editing State would be required to prepare the could be accomplished as easily as first (transmission) module, with possible, including the possibility of nationwide compliance by a specified computer-assisted editing. date; whenever a State is prepared to use the transmission format, it would With these purposes in mind, the be free to do so for all interstate Task Force recommends a standard criminal history transmissions. Of data transmission format. The course, some States may be unable to proposed format is an extension and “understand” records received in this adaptation of a transmission format format for an extended period of time. already adopted for State-to-Federal This problem could be eliminated if and Federal-to-State transmission of the National Law Enforcement fingerprint card images and data. This Telecommunications System “electronic fingerprint card” format (NLETS), which provides message- provides for a broad variety of data switching services for all interstate elements concerning personal criminal history interchanges, would identification, arrests, charges, provide the service of translating from dispositions and sentences.50 Some the transmission format to the additions would have to be made to presentation format described in meet the data content Recommendation 3, for those States recommendations made by this Task which request this service. Force. While the development of a criminal history transmission The method for developing and specification is by no means trivial, implementing the specification the similarity to the already should follow that used for the completed specification suggests that development and implementation of it poses no substantial risk of failure. the electronic fingerprint card specification. This method involves The technical implementation of the broad consultation among interested specification involves two modules: a parties under the aegis of the FBI computer program to convert from Criminal Justice Information Services file format to transmission format Advisory Policy Board. Broad input when transmitting a record for and concurrence by the NLETS Board interstate use, and a second computer of Directors should also be sought. program to convert from transmission format to presentation format when Appendix C shows an example in receiving an interstate criminal transmission format of a criminal history record. history record similar to the recommended presentation format described in Recommendation 3.

50“Criminal Justice Information Services Electronic Fingerprinting Transmission Specification,” Federal Bureau of Investigation, May 1994.

National Criminal History Record Task Force Report Page 33 Appendix A

Task Force Participants Task Force Participants

Chairman Jack Scheidegger Chief, Bureau of Criminal Identification and Information, California Department of Justice

Members Kenneth E. Bischoff Director, Administrative Services, Alaska Department of Public Safety

Joseph P. Bonino Chairman, Criminal Justice Information Services Advisory Policy Board; Commanding Officer, Records and Identification Division, Los Angeles, California Police Department

Lt. Larry Copley * Commanding Officer, Identification Section, Central Records Division, Michigan Department of State Police

Patrick J. Doyle ** Immediate Past Chairman, National Crime Information Center Advisory Policy Board; Director, Division of Criminal Justice Information Systems, Florida Department of Law Enforcement

Owen M. Greenspan Deputy Commissioner, New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services

Bruce M. Harvey Milwaukee County, Wisconsin Justice System Coordinator

Dr. Sally T. Hillsman *** Vice President, Research and Technical Services, National Center for State Courts (former)

Robert R. Hole † Deputy District Attorney, Contra Costa County, California

Honorable Michael Hutchings Utah Third Circuit Court

Frank Johnstone Section Chief, Technical Services Section, Information Systems and Technology Division, Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services

George Klier †† Bureau Chief, Information Services, Norfolk County, Massachusetts Sheriff’s Office

David B. Lodge Special Agent-in-Charge, Crystal City Investigative Field Office (Capital Region), Defense Investigative Service, U.S. Department of Defense

Edward J. Loughran Director, Juvenile Justice Project, Robert F. Kennedy Memorial

Clifford H. Marshall Sheriff, Norfolk County, Massachusetts

Jerome E. McElroy Director, New York City Criminal Justice Agency

Judy Metz Chief, Correctional Case Records Services, California Department of Corrections

Appendix A-1 Matthew Myers ††† Undersheriff, Ingham County, Michigan

Rosemarie Pifer Director, Central Records Division, Michigan Department of State Police

Emmet A. Rathbun Unit Chief, Criminal Justice Information Services Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation

Anthony L. Stolz Jr. Director, Personnel Investigations Center, Defense Investigative Service, U.S. Department of Defense

Capt. R. Lewis Vass Records Management Officer, Records Management Division, Virginia State Police

Lt. John G. Weakley ‡ Assistant Records Management Officer, Records Management Division, Virginia State Police

Lawrence P. Webster Director, Court Technology Programs, National Center for State Courts

Gene Wriggelsworth Sheriff, Ingham County, Michigan

Gary T. Yancey District Attorney, Contra Costa County, California

Virgil L. Young Jr. ‡‡ Section Chief, Programs Development Section, Criminal Justice Information Services Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation (former)

BJS Carol G. Kaplan Project Monitor; Assistant Deputy Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice

SEARCH Staff Sheila J. Barton Gary R. Cooper Jodi M. Hrbek Deputy Director Executive Director Administrative Assistant/ Law and Policy Robert L. Marx Paul L. Woodard Senior System Specialist Senior Counsel

* Lt. Copley served as an alternate for Rosemarie Pifer. ** In 1994, Mr. Doyle’s term as Chair of the National Crime Information Center Advisory Policy Board (APB) concluded. The new Chair of the reorganized Criminal Justice Information Services APB, Mr. Joseph P. Bonino, replaced Mr. Doyle as the Task Force representative from the APB. *** During her tenure on the Task Force, Dr. Hillsman accepted an appointment to the National Institute of Justice. Mr. Lawrence P. Webster replaced her as the Task Force representative from the National Center for State Courts. † Mr. Hole served as an alternate for Mr. Gary T. Yancey. †† Mr. Klier served as an alternate for Sheriff Clifford H. Marshall. ††† Mr. Myers served as an alternate for Sheriff Gene Wriggelsworth. ‡ Lt. Weakley served as an alternate for Capt. R. Lewis Vass. ‡‡ Mr. Young transferred to the position of Special Agent-in-Charge of the FBI’s Knoxville, Tennessee Office. Mr. Emmet A. Rathbun replaced Mr. Young as the Task Force representative from the FBI.

Appendix A-2 Participants’ biographies

Kenneth E. Bischoff As a member of the National Lt. Larry Copley Since 1987, Mr. Bischoff has Crime Information Center (NCIC) Lt. Copley is Commanding Officer served as Director of the Division of Western Regional Working Group, of the Identification Section, Central Administrative Services for the Mr. Bonino has been elected to Records Division, Michigan State Alaska Department of Public Safety. participate in the FBI policy advisory Police. He has served with the Mr. Bischoff’s responsibilities process since 1985, including the Michigan State Police in a variety of include management for the State’s development of NCIC 2000 and the positions since 1972 and in his criminal records repository; data FBI’s Integrated Automated current position since 1985. processing, including the Alaska Fingerprint Identification System As Commanding Officer, Lt. Public Safety Information Network (IAFIS). In 1989, he chaired the Copley has the responsibility for the (motor vehicles and law NCIC Advisory Policy Board’s creation of the Michigan Criminal enforcement); and general (APB) Identification Services Task History Record and the administration of the Department, Group and wrote the study titled corresponding Automated Fingerprint including accounting, personnel and “Identification Division Identification System file. The contracting. Revitalization” for the Director of the Identification Section is also Prior to his current position, Mr. FBI that led directly to the $500 responsible for providing background Bischoff was the Director of Finance million IAFIS program now funded checks by fingerprint and name to the for the Alaska Department of by Congress and in development by general public and to other Administration. He has also served as the FBI. governmental agencies for licensing Audit Manager with the Division of Mr. Bonino served on the former and other regulatory needs. Legislative Audit for the Alaska NCIC APB since 1988. When the Prior to his joining the Michigan Legislature. APB reorganized in 1994, he was State Police, Lt. Copley served as a Mr. Bischoff is Alaska’s elected Chair of the FBI’s new security line officer for Dow representative to the Western Criminal Justice Information Services Chemical Company. He later Identification Network and is a past APB. attended Officer Candidate School member of the National Crime Mr. Bonino is a member of the and served as a Security Police Information Center Advisory Policy California Peace Officers Officer in the United States Air Force Board. He also serves on the Association; the Advisory Board to in the capacity of Commander of SEARCH Board of Directors and is the Secretary of the Air Force, Office base policing and security. While in Chair of the SEARCH Systems and of Public Affairs, Western Region; the military, he also served as a Technology Program Advisory and the Community Relations Combat Crew Commander in charge Committee. Advisory Board for Los Angeles Air of a Minuteman III Intercontinental Mr. Bischoff received his B.S. in Force Base. He has been a member of Ballistic Missile launch crew. accounting and quantitative methods the California Identification System Lt. Copley received his Bachelor of from the University of Oregon and is (Cal-ID) Advisory Committee since Science degree in police a certified public accountant. 1984 and is a member of the administration from Michigan State International Association for University in 1964. Joseph P. Bonino Identification. He is an alternate Mr. Bonino has served in the Los member of the Board of Directors of Patrick J. (P.J.) Doyle Angeles Police Department for the the Western Identification Network. Mr. Doyle is Director, Division of past 27 years, and has been the Mr. Bonino holds a bachelor’s Criminal Justice Information Commanding Officer of its Records degree in economics from Loyola Systems, Florida Department of Law and Identification Division for the University (Los Angeles, California) Enforcement (FDLE). As Director, past 11 years. In this position, he and a Master’s degree in economics Mr. Doyle is responsible for directing manages a staff of over 300 persons from the University of California, the activities of nearly 400 members and has major responsibilities in a Los Angeles (UCLA). He has who make up the Division. He number of areas of criminal justice completed the year-long Executive oversees Florida’s system of and records management Program at the UCLA Anderson fingerprint analysis and technologies, including records Graduate School of Management, as identification; its Crime Information manager, Automated Fingerprint well as the Executive Development Center; its Uniform Crime Reporting Identification System (AFIS) Course through the California system; and its Missing Children manager, and criminal records Commission on Peace Officer Information Center. He is currently security officer. He is a recognized Standards and Training. instrumental in the design, expert in the field of AFISs and development and implementation of police records management. an automated fingerprint

Appendix A-3 identification system in Florida, as History Record Disposition automation. Other projects involve well as overseeing the migration of Reporting and has served on several such topics as trial court the Florida Crime Information Center advisory groups dealing with the accountability and performance system from a medium to a large national criminal history and standards, human management, and mainframe computer system. identification systems. racial and ethnic bias. Mr. Doyle previously served in the Mr. Greenspan received his B.A. From 1979-1991, Dr. Hillsman was FDLE as Inspector General and as from Fordham University and holds the Associate Director of the Vera Chief Inspector. Mr. Doyle has also an M.P.S. in criminal justice from Institute of Justice in New York City worked with the State’s Attorney’s Long Island University. and its Director of Research. She Office of the Ninth Judicial Circuit as conducted research using an investigator with the Organized Bruce M. Harvey experimental and nonexperimental Crime Strike Force and as a detective Mr. Harvey has been the Justice designs in a wide range of criminal with the Palm Beach County System Coordinator for Milwaukee justice areas including intermediate Sheriff’s Office. County, Wisconsin since 1989. In sanctions, case processing, Mr. Doyle served as Chairman of this position, Mr. Harvey is the prosecution and court delay, pretrial the FBI’s Advisory Policy Board of executive administrator for the Chief diversion and policing. Her past work the National Crime Information Judge of Milwaukee County for the included research on narcotics law Center and is Florida’s representative criminal courts. enforcement in New York City, the to the National Law Enforcement Prior to his present position, Mr. provision of criminal defense Telecommunications System. He is Harvey held other criminal justice services in the New York criminal also a past member of the SEARCH positions, including Deputy courts and fining practices in criminal Membership Group and the Executive Director of the Wisconsin cases in the United States and SEARCH Board of Directors, as well Council on Criminal Justice and a Western Europe. as serving in several other criminal Criminal Justice Planner and Dr. Hillsman holds a Ph.D. in justice positions. Consultant for the Denver Regional sociology from Columbia University. Mr. Doyle holds a B.A. degree in Council of Governments. Mr. Harvey criminal justice and psychology from has also served as an Executive Robert R. Hole Florida Technological University. Legislative Assistant to the Mr. Hole has been a Deputy Wisconsin State Senate, Research District Attorney in Contra Costa Owen M. Greenspan Associate to the Wisconsin Supreme County, California since 1971. Since Mr. Greenspan is a Deputy Court, and in strategic planning and 1982, Mr. Hole has been assigned as Commissioner at the New York State corporate development for the “Homicide Watch Attorney,” a Division of Criminal Justice Services Wisconsin Physicians Service. position which is a combination of with oversight responsibilities for the Mr. Harvey received a B.S. from lawyer and “investigative lawyer.” Bureau for Municipal Police and the Austin Peay State University His duties consist of responding to Bureau of Identification and Criminal (Clarksville, Tennessee) and an homicide scenes to assist police History Operations. He is responsible M.P.A. in criminal justice agencies with their investigations and for the State’s central repository of administration from the University of to start the evaluation and preparation criminal history records, coordination Colorado. of cases for prosecution; providing of the State Drug Abuse Resistance legal and investigative assistance to Education program, police training, Dr. Sally T. Hillsman police agencies on other types of New York’s Missing and Exploited In October 1991, Dr. Hillsman serious and high-profile cases; Children Clearinghouse, and a wide became Vice President of the writing probable cause warrants for range of other services to the State’s Research Division for the National complicated search and arrest criminal justice community. Center for State Courts (NCSC). In procedures; advising police officers Before joining State government in that position, she oversees all NCSC regarding search and arrest warrant 1987, Mr. Greenspan was a member Federal grant proposals and national issues and reviewing warrants and of the New York City Police scope projects. Among other issues, affidavits; investigating officer- Department for more than 20 years. these national initiatives deal with involved fatal incidents at the request His career spanned patrol, caseflow management for general of the District Attorney; developing investigative and administrative civil, domestic relations, felony, and writing procedures and providing assignments. misdemeanor, drug, traffic, small training for prosecutor and police Mr. Greenspan is New York’s claims and appellate cases; personnel on such topics as Miranda, SEARCH appointee and currently differentiated case management; and inspection warrants, and search and serves as Vice Chair of the trial delay and decisions. In addition, arrest warrants; and investigating Membership Group and the Board of NCSC’s national projects also focus and/or assisting on other special Directors. He was also a member of on court applications of technology, cases. the National Task Force on Criminal including statewide and trial court

Appendix A-4 Mr. Hole has also taught on a Members of this committee are George Klier variety of college-level law divided into hearing panels to Mr. Klier has served for 19 years enforcement subjects in California. In arbitrate fee disputes between with the Norfolk County, addition, he has served as a member attorneys and clients. A hearing panel Massachusetts Sheriff’s Office and is of the Peace Officer Standards and consists of a judge, an attorney and a currently the Bureau Chief of Training committees which have set lay citizen. Criminal Information Services. In his up statewide courses for both Among a number of legal position, he supervises the prosecutor and law officer training. publications he has written, Judge automation of the Sheriff’s Office, Mr. Hole is the principal author of Hutchings most recently wrote an National Crime Information Center the Contra Costa County Police article for the Utah Bar Journal titled and Leaps operations. He has also Chiefs Association’s “Protocol for “Twenty Tips for Successful been responsible for the automated the Investigation of Officer-Involved Courtroom Advocacy.” He has also inmate tracking system (1990), live- Fatal Incidents.” received several professional honors, scan fingerprinting (1992), and Mr. Hole received his bachelor’s including Circuit Court Judge of the digitized photo imaging (1993). degree from the University of Year for 1988. Mr. Klier is the designee from the California, Berkeley, and his J.D. Judge Hutchings received his B.A. Massachusetts Sheriffs’ Association from Golden Gate University Law from Brigham Young University and to the Massachusetts Criminal School (San Francisco, California). his J.D. from the Reuben Clark Law History Systems Board. He is also a School of Brigham Young member of the Criminal Records Honorable Michael L. University. Improvement Task Force Working Hutchings Group and the Norfolk County Judge Hutchings is Judge of the Frank W. Johnstone Domestic Violence Roundtable. Third Circuit Court of Utah, which Mr. Johnstone has over 28 years of serves Salt Lake, Summit and Tooele experience in law enforcement and David B. Lodge Counties. Judge Hutchings was criminal justice in State, local and Mr. Lodge is currently the Special appointed in 1983 by Gov. Scott campus agencies. He was Director of Agent-in-Charge (SAC) of the Matheson and has twice been re- Police at the University of Virginia Crystal City Investigative Field elected. His duties include and also has served as Chief of Police Office (Capital Region), Defense conducting circuit court trials (civil of Albemarle County, Virginia. Investigative Service (DIS), U.S. and misdemeanor), as well as ruling Mr. Johnstone received B.A. and Department of Defense, located in on all pretrial and post-trial motions. M.A. degrees from Brigham Young Arlington, Virginia. In his 14 years Judge Hutchings also issues search University. He has taught courses in with DIS, he has held the positions of and arrest warrants, sets and denies American Government and Case Controller and Chief of the bail, appoints counsel, and conducts Legislative Process at BYU and Operations Management Office at the first appearance and preliminary numerous law enforcement courses in Personnel Investigations Center hearings in felony cases. the community college system in (Baltimore, Maryland); Special Prior to his judicial appointment, Virginia. He is past president of both Agent (Baltimore, Maryland); Acting Judge Hutchings served as a the Virginia Association of Chiefs of SAC (Baltimore and Hanover, prosecutor for the West Valley City Police and the Virginia Campus Maryland); and Staff Officer, Municipal Corporation, representing Police Association. Investigations Directorate, DIS Utah’s second largest city in all Mr. Johnstone was employed by Headquarters (Alexandria, Virginia). Federal and State litigation. He was the Virginia Department of Criminal Mr. Lodge also recently completed a also an associate in the litigation Justice Services as a consultant and detail to the staff of the Office of the section of the firm of Senior and became Section Chief of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Senior in Salt Lake City. Technical Services Section of the Defense (Counterintelligence and Judge Hutchings has served on the Information Systems and Technology Security Countermeasures). Utah State Judicial Council, the Division in 1989. His main areas of Mr. Lodge’s experience in the area Circuit Court Board of Judges and responsibility have been working of criminal history record the Court Information Systems with the Incident-Based Reporting information includes evaluating and Committee. In addition, he is system, Virginia’s Criminal History negotiating access to repositories currently serving as Vice Chair of the Record Information Task Force, with State and local representatives Utah Tomorrow Justice Committee, criminal intelligence systems and serving as the central point of which is a legislatively created task compliance and other technical contact with the FBI’s Criminal force to engage in strategic planning assistance projects. Justice Information Systems (CJIS) for Utah’s court systems over the Division. He has been a member of next decade and into the 21st century. the National Fingerprint File Pilot Judge Hutchings also sits on the Utah Project Evaluation Group and was State Bar Fee Arbitration Committee. involved in the formulation of the

Appendix A-5 recently approved Federal Regional Clifford H. Marshall member of the Governor’s Anti- Working Group under the CJIS Mr. Marshall is Sheriff of Norfolk Crime Council. He was appointed by Advisory Policy Board. County, Massachusetts, having first the Governor to the Criminal History Mr. Lodge received his B.A. in been elected to the position in 1974. Systems Board and is a member of its psychology from Shippensburg State As Sheriff, his jurisdiction extends Records Improvement Task Force. University (Pennsylvania). over 27 towns, the City of Quincy, and over 600,000 Norfolk County Jerome E. McElroy Edward J. Loughran residents. Mr. McElroy is currently Executive Mr. Loughran recently assumed the Prior to his election to the post of Director of the New York City position of Director of the Juvenile Sheriff, he served in the Criminal Justice Agency, a nonprofit Justice Project for the Robert F. Massachusetts House of agency which provides pretrial Kennedy Memorial in Boston, Representatives where he was services to the City’s Criminal Courts Massachusetts. Prior to his Assistant Majority Leader. He was and research services to the Mayor’s appointment to this position, he also a member of the Joint Office. served as Commissioner of the Committee on Counties and Rules. Prior to his current position, Mr. Massachusetts Department of Youth During his tenure, Sheriff Marshall McElroy was Associate Director for Services from 1985 to mid-1993, and has established a number of Research at the Vera Institute of had also earlier served as the correctional programs, including the Justice for a number of years, during department’s Deputy Commissioner. Braintree Alternative Center (BAC), which time he directed research Before coming to Massachusetts in a community-based detention center; projects dealing with a wide variety 1980, Mr. Loughran spent 10 years the Inmate Community Service and of criminological and criminal justice with the New York State Division for Work Release Programs, based at the matters. He has also served as Deputy Youth, holding a variety of positions, BAC and recognized as positive steps Administrator of the New York State including Director of Program toward the successful reintegration of Division of Criminal Justice Management Services, Director of criminal offenders to the community; Services when that agency served as Program Utilization, Director of the the Electronic Incarceration Program, the State planning agency under the Long-Term Treatment Unit at the or “house arrest” to relieve chronic Law Enforcement Assistance Bronx Children’s Psychiatric Center, overcrowding and to prevent the Administration program. and Director of the J. Stanley unnecessary release of incarcerated Mr. McElroy has served on the Sheppard Youth Center. offenders; and sponsorship of the faculties of the John Jay College of A frequent lecturer and writer on Child Fingerprinting and Criminal Justice at Fordham topics of juvenile justice, Mr. Identification Programs, the Drug University (New York) and the Loughran has taught graduate-level Abuse Resistance Education Fordham University Graduate School courses at Westfield State College Program, and his own Drug and of Social Work. He also is an (Massachusetts). He has also served Alcohol Awareness Program, which Adjunct faculty member to the New as a consultant to a variety of juvenile reaches over 10,000 Norfolk County York City Police Academy. justice agencies throughout the students annually. He is a member of the Board of country. In February 1992, the new 428-bed Directors of the National Criminal Mr. Loughran is a member of the Norfolk County Sheriff’s Office and Justice Association and has served on American Correctional Association, Correctional Center became fully several advisory committees the Correctional Association of operational, replacing the “Dedham concerned with criminal justice Massachusetts, and a participant in Jail” built in 1817. The facility, practices in his home State of New the Juvenile Justice Key employing state-of-the-art security Jersey. Decisionmakers Project sponsored by features and a jail management the Center for the Study of Youth concept that secures cost-effective Policy at the University of Michigan. operations, is located between the Mr. Loughran holds a bachelor’s north- and south-bound lanes of degree from Saint Joseph’s College Route 128. This unique site, the first (Princeton, New Jersey) and graduate ever in the median of an interstate degrees from Mary Immaculate highway, was chosen by the Sheriff College (Northampton, Pennsylvania) after surveying some 32 different and Fordham University (Bronx, locations. New York). Sheriff Marshall is the recipient of a number of awards and also serves as State Director of the National Sheriff’s Association. He is past President of the Massachusetts Sheriff’s Association and a former

Appendix A-6 Judy Metz Matthew Myers In 1992, Gov. John Engler Ms. Metz has 22 years of Mr. Myers has served as appointed Ms. Pifer to SEARCH, and experience with the California Undersheriff of the Ingham County, she is currently serving on the Department of Corrections (DOC) in Michigan Sheriff’s Department since SEARCH Board of Directors. She is the area of inmate/parolee records. 1992. Prior to his current position, he also a member of the National She currently serves as Chief of Case was the Chief Deputy for 3 years. Criminal Justice Association and Records Services for DOC. Mr. Myers has worked in law various State criminal justice In 1981, Ms. Metz established the enforcement since 1976 including organizations in Michigan. She also DOC Legal Processing Unit which serving with the Michigan State serves on the FBI’s UCR Advisory has responsibility for reviewing legal University Department of Public Policy Board. documents with sentencing Safety for 13 years. He also has been Ms. Pifer holds a B.S. degree in discrepancies and communicating a part-time instructor at Lansing management and supervision from with the courts and the Office of the Community College and Mid- Central Michigan University. Attorney General to resolve the Michigan Police Academy. discrepancies. He is active in a number of Emmet A. Rathbun Ms. Metz has direct administration professional associations, including Mr. Rathbun has served with the of the 24-hour Identification/ the Michigan Sheriffs’ Association Federal Bureau of Investigation for Warrants Unit, the Central Legal and Michigan Chiefs of Police. He 17 years, having begun his service in Processing Unit, the Case Records has also served as a trustee of the 1978 with the FBI’s National Crime Training Team and the DOC Holt Public Schools Board of Information Center where he Archives Section. She also has Education and the Fraternal Order of performed various duties in a overall functional supervision Police. supervisory capacity. Since 1989, he responsibility for 40 existing Case Mr. Myers received an M.A. in has been assigned to the FBI’s Records Offices located in education and a B.S. in criminal Criminal Justice Information Services institutions and parole regions justice from Michigan State Division (formerly Identification statewide and for all future Case University. He also has completed his Division), where he is currently the Records Offices. In addition, she is coursework for a doctorate degree in Unit Chief. the principal advisor on the education with an emphasis on labor Mr. Rathbun began his career in Department’s forthcoming and industrial relations at Michigan law enforcement as a police officer in computerized Correctional State University. He also is a 1964. In 1965, he became a special Management Information System. graduate of the FBI National agent for the Iowa Bureau of As Chief, Ms. Metz plans, Academy. Criminal Investigation and later develops and administers policies became Assistant Director for that governing the Department’s uniform Rosemarie (Marie) Pifer agency before accepting a position case records system; assumes Ms. Pifer is Director of the with the FBI. Mr. Rathbun is a responsibility and accountability for Michigan State Police Central graduate of Upper Iowa University. the accurate interpretation and Records Division, which is the application of laws, administrative Michigan central repository for standards, and court decisions related criminal history records, criminal and to processing, maintenance and applicant fingerprints, handgun control of inmate and parolee records registrations and Uniform Crime within the Department’s record Reporting. She served as the system; acts as administrative and Assistant Director for 3 years prior to technical advisor on matters related her current appointment. to the statewide records system; and Ms. Pifer has been employed with acts as primary Department liaison the Michigan State Police for 21 with other governmental agencies, years, serving 16 years as a program courts, legislators and other persons, analyst for Uniform Crime Reporting on matters related to DOC’s records (UCR), Criminal History Reporting, functions. Automated Fingerprint Identification System and the Auto Theft Prevention Authority.

Appendix A-7 Jack Scheidegger Anthony L. (Tony) Stolz, Jr. Telecommunications System, and is Mr. Scheidegger, Chief, Bureau of Mr. Stolz is the Director of the the Control Terminal Officer for the Criminal Identification and Personnel Investigations Center State of Virginia. He was recently Information (BCII), California (PIC), Defense Investigative Service appointed by Gov. George Allen as Department of Justice, has been in (DIS), U.S. Department of Defense. the Virginia representative to law enforcement for over 25 years. He has held positions as Special SEARCH. He is currently responsible for the Agent (Green Bay, Wisconsin); Capt. Vass was instrumental in administration of criminal Special Agent-in-Charge (Memphis, designing and developing the VFTP, identification and information Tennessee, and Beltsville, Maryland); the first instant-check, point-of-sale services to local and national criminal Case Controller at the PIC approval system in the Nation for justice systems, a complex (Baltimore, Maryland); Team Chief firearms sales, and the design and organization consisting of (PIC); DIS Headquarters, Staff implementation of the Multiple approximately 1,000 positions with a Officer (Washington, D.C.); both the Handgun Application/Certificate $47 million annual budget. Assistant Chief and Chief of program. He currently serves as a Previous to his appointment as Investigations Division (PIC); and member of the Brady Act Task Chief of BCII in 1991, Mr. Acting Deputy Director (PIC). Group on Functional Requirements Scheidegger held the following Mr. Stolz served in the U.S. Army for the National Instant Criminal positions: Chief of the Bureau of as a Military Intelligence Officer. His Background Check System for Forensic Services; Director of the assignments included the 197th firearms purchases. Bureau of Medi-Cal Fraud and Infantry Brigade, 111th Military Capt. Vass served as a member of Patient Abuse; Chief Investigator of Intelligence Group, the 10th Special the Felon Identification in Firearms the Bureau of Medi-Cal Fraud; Force Group Airborne and the DIS. Sales Ad Hoc Task Force. He has Legislative Advocate with the Mr. Stolz received his B.S. degree served as a member of the steering Attorney General’s Office; Program in history from the University of committee to assist the Bureau of Manager of the Statistical Analysis Wisconsin, Milwaukee. Justice Assistance in the design of a Center, Bureau of Criminal Statistics; methodology to evaluate criminal Manager of the Automated Latent Capt. R. Lewis Vass history records programs. Capt. Vass Print System, Bureau of Forensic Capt. Vass graduated from the is a member of the AFIS Internet, and Services; Chief of the Special Virginia State Police Academy in also serves as a coordinator of Services Bureau, Investigative 1967. During his 28 years of service legislative liaisons to the Virginia Services Branch; Manager of the with the Virginia State Police, he has General Assembly for the Special Operations Section of the received specialized training in many Department of State Police. Bureau of Identification; and areas of law enforcement, including Metropolitan Specialist, Liaison the handling of explosive devices, Lt. John G. Weakley Bureau of the Law Enforcement terrorist activities and civil disorders. Lt. Weakley graduated from the Consolidate Data Center. Capt. Vass is a graduate of Virginia State Police Academy in Mr. Scheidegger’s experience in Northwestern University Traffic 1969 and currently has 26 years the law enforcement field has also Institute where he studied personnel service with the Virginia State Police. included serving as Chair of the management, and he is currently a He has received training in police Attorney General’s Advisory student at Virginia State University. supervision and management through Committee on Criminal History Capt. Vass currently serves as the the University of North Florida, Record Improvement, a member of Records Management Officer, Virginia Commonwealth University, the Los Angeles Police Department Records Management Division, and Northwestern University Traffic Hillside Strangler Task Force, and a Virginia Department of State Police. Institute. Lt. Weakley is assigned as legislative advocate for law His responsibilities include the Assistant Records Management enforcement. He is the California Virginia Automated Fingerprint Officer with responsibility for governor-appointee to SEARCH and Identification System (AFIS), the the Automated Fingerprint currently serves on the SEARCH Virginia Central Criminal Records Identification System (AFIS), the Board of Directors. Exchange, Virginia Firearms Central Criminal Records Exchange, Mr. Scheidegger received a B.A. Transaction Program (VFTP), and the scheduling and retention of degree in public administration from Virginia Criminal Information all Department records. California State University, Network, Virginia Missing Children Lt. Weakley is a charter member of Sacramento, and an M.P.A. from the Information Clearinghouse, and the the Virginia State Police Association. University of Southern California, Uniform Crime Reporting Section. He is also a member of the Virginia Los Angeles. He has also completed He is a representative on the National Association of Government Archives the Executive Management Program Crime Information Center Southern and Records Administrators, and is a at the University of California, Davis. Region Working Group, the National member of the AFIS Internet. Law Enforcement

Appendix A-8 Lawrence P. (Larry) Webster Education, holding the offices of Virgil L. Young, Jr. Mr. Webster is Executive Director Vice President and Secretary. Sheriff Mr. Young is currently the Special of Court Technology Programs at the Wriggelsworth has also served as Agent-in-Charge of the Federal National Center for State Courts instructor, guest lecturer and Bureau of Investigation’s Knoxville, (NCSC). He is responsible for consultant to several colleges and Tennessee Office. He previously was national scope technology research police academies. He has also served the Section Chief, Programs and information exchange, and is as Special Educator to the State Development Section, Criminal involved in technology education and Board of Education. He is a graduate Justice Information Services consulting. He has delivered more of the FBI National Academy. Division, Federal Bureau of than 30 seminars and courses related Sheriff Wriggelsworth currently Investigation. In 1991, he was also to technology in the justice system. serves on the Drug Abuse Resistance designated as an Inspector-in-Place. He was the principal author of Education State Advisory Board. In Mr. Young began his FBI career as Planning, Acquiring, and addition, he has been appointed by a Special Agent in 1970 and was Implementing Court Automation and the Governor to serve on the assigned to the Detroit Field Office. has prepared or assisted with Emergency Preparedness Advisory He was later assigned to the San numerous other books, articles and Council and the Fire Safety Task Francisco Field Office to attend the papers. Force Planning Committee. He was Defense Language Institute in Before joining NCSC, Mr. Webster also appointed to represent the Monterey, California. In 1972, he was Director of Data Processing for Michigan Sheriff’s Association on served as a “street agent” and later as the Utah courts, where he supervised the Michigan Coalition for a Drug- a Squad Supervisor in the New York the automation of the district and Free Workplace, and is currently Office. circuit courts and the court of appeals working with the Michigan State Mr. Young has held various other and was responsible for maintaining Police and the Governor’s Office to positions with the Bureau, including existing systems in the supreme and establish a pilot program for a Drug- supervisory duties in the Criminal juvenile courts. He has also Free School Zone in cooperation with Investigative Division at FBI previously worked as Manager of the public schools. Headquarters; Unit Chief; Inspector’s Operations and Development for the Aide; Assistant Section Chief; and Colorado District Attorneys Council Gary T. Yancey Section Chief in the Identification and as systems manager for the Mr. Yancey is the District Division. He also served in the United States Attorney in Denver, Attorney-Public Administrator for Richmond, Virginia Field Office as Colorado, and the District Attorney’s Contra Costa County, California. Mr. Assistant Special Agent-in-Charge. Office in Golden, Colorado. Yancey began his career as a Mr. Young earned a B.A. degree in Mr. Webster holds a Master of prosecutor for the Contra Costa political science from the University Science in Judicial Administration County District Attorney’s Office in of Kansas. Upon graduation, he was from the University of Denver 1969. In 1985, he was appointed to commissioned second lieutenant in College of Law. the position of District Attorney of the United States Marine Corps, Contra Costa County by the Board of where he spent 4 years as an infantry Gene Wriggelsworth Supervisors and has twice been officer, including 1 year in Vietnam. Elected Sheriff of Ingham County, elected to full 4-year terms, the He later earned a master’s degree in Michigan in 1988, Mr. second time without opposition. professional studies from Long Island Wriggelsworth has over 27 years of Mr. Yancey is currently President University. experience in law enforcement. of the California District Attorneys Fourteen of those years were spent as Association. He is also President of Supervisor of the Tri-County Metro the Contra Costa County Police Narcotics Squad, a task force of law Chiefs Association. Mr. Yancey is a enforcement agencies in three graduate of Hastings College of Law Michigan counties, including (California). He received a B.S. in Ingham. chemical engineering from the Sheriff Wriggelsworth began his University of California, Berkeley. law enforcement career with the Michigan State Police and served as a State Trooper and was, over the course of his service, promoted to Detective Lieutenant. Also active in the field of education, Sheriff Wriggelsworth served on the Holt Schools Board of

Appendix A-9 Staff biographies Advisory Committee and Board of various research and planning Directors. positions with the California Council Prior to joining SEARCH, Ms. on Criminal Justice and the ■ Bureau of Justice Statistics, Barton was a Municipal Judge in California Crime Technological U.S. Department of Justice Cheyenne, Wyoming, and was also Research Foundation. He has written engaged in the private practice of extensively in all areas of information Carol G. Kaplan law. She also has held the positions law and policy, with an emphasis on Ms. Kaplan is Assistant Deputy of Public Defender for Cheyenne and the privacy and security of criminal Director of the Bureau of Justice Staff Attorney to the Wyoming history records. Statistics (BJS), U.S. Department of Supreme Court. She has also served Mr. Cooper received his B.A. Justice, and is responsible for all BJS in the New York State Department of degree in political science from the programs in the area of Federal Correctional Services, Office of the University of California, Davis. criminal justice case processing. Special Legal Assistant to the Additionally, she administers Commissioner, and as Legal Jodi M. Hrbek programs designed to identify and Specialist for the Department’s Ms. Hrbek joined the SEARCH analyze criminal justice information Division of Health Services. Prior to staff in December 1994 as issues and to ensure compliance with her service in New York, she was Administrative Assistant for the Law privacy, security and confidentiality Associate County Judge for Lincoln and Policy Program. Ms. Hrbek regulations. County, Nebraska. assists in the implementation of State Ms. Kaplan has been involved with She holds a B.A. from Augustana and local technical assistance Federal privacy, security and College (South Dakota) and a J.D. programs and the planning of information policy since 1975, and in from the University of Nebraska national conferences and workshops the mid-1970s participated in the College of Law, Lincoln. on justice information policy issues. development of the original national In addition, Ms. Hrbek contributes regulations in this area. She also Gary R. Cooper research and writing to studies on participated in the initial efforts Since 1983, Mr. Cooper has served justice information policy relating to interstate data exchange as the Executive Director of development. and in the development of guidelines SEARCH, The National Consortium She holds a B.A. in the governing the operation of for Justice Information and Statistics. interdisciplinary program of intelligence systems. In his role as Executive Director, Mr. American Culture from Northwestern Ms. Kaplan previously served as an Cooper is called upon to represent University. attorney with the Department of SEARCH before the various Health, Education and Welfare and branches and levels of government, Robert L. Marx the Federal Communications including the U.S. Congress and the Mr. Marx has been associated with Commission. She is a graduate of U. S. Department of Justice, criminal Project SEARCH and SEARCH Radcliffe College and the Columbia justice associations, and the private since its inception in 1969 and University School of Law. sector. He has twice chaired the currently serves as Senior System Evaluation Committee for tests of the Specialist, with particular emphasis ■ SEARCH, The National Interstate Identification Index, a on automated fingerprint Consortium for Justice committee of the Advisory Policy identification systems (AFIS) and the Information and Statistics Board to the FBI’s National Crime design, analysis and evaluation of Information Center, and currently information systems in State Sheila J. Barton chairs the FBI’s Evaluation Group for identification bureaus. Mr. Marx has As a Deputy Director of SEARCH, the National Fingerprint File Pilot provided consulting services to Ms. Barton is responsible for the Project. numerous State and local development and implementation of a In 1981, Mr. Cooper was appointed governments, as well as to the U.S. multifaceted program of public by California’s Governor to the Senate; the Congressional Office of policy analysis, documentation of California Commission on Personal Technology Assessment; the Office State and Federal information policy Privacy. He currently serves on the of Telecommunications Policy; the development, education and Board of Directors for the National Law Enforcement Assistance assistance to State and local Foundation for Law and Technology. Administration; and the Bureau of policymakers, the conduct of national With SEARCH for 21 years, Mr. Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of conferences and workshops on justice Cooper has also served as the Deputy Justice. information policy issues, and the Director and the Director of the Law Mr. Marx was on the faculty of publication of timely studies on and Policy Program. SEARCH’s “National Conference on justice information policy. She is also Mr. Cooper’s law enforcement Automated Fingerprint Identification In-house Counsel and staff to the career began as a patrolman for the Systems: Preparing for AFIS SEARCH Law and Policy Program City of Sacramento, and he has held Procurement and Implementation.”

Appendix A-10 He also was the technical director of Relations, U.S. Department of SEARCH’s Technical Report No. 6: Justice; Assistant Administrator and An Experiment to Determine the General Counsel, Law Enforcement Feasibility of Holographic Assistance Assistance Administration; Chief to Fingerprint Identification; Counsel and Staff Director, Technical Report No. 8: Design of a Subcommittee on Constitutional Model State Identification Bureau; Rights, U.S. Senate; Chief Counsel Master Plan for Identification System and Staff Director, Subcommittee on Upgrade; and Guidelines for Separation of Powers, U.S. Senate; Evaluating Automated Fingerprinting Assistant Counsel, Subcommittee on Systems. Criminal Laws and Procedures, U.S. Mr. Marx earned a B.S. in Senate; and an Associate with the law chemistry from Marquette University firm of Dechert, Price and Rhoads, and completed graduate work in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. physics at the U.S. Naval Mr. Woodard is a graduate of the Postgraduate School. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and the University of Virginia Paul L. Woodard Law School. Mr. Woodard is Senior Counsel in the Law and Policy Program at SEARCH and has been associated with SEARCH since 1974. As Senior Counsel, Mr. Woodard has been involved in providing technical assistance to State and local criminal justice agencies dealing with the development of policies and procedures and writing legislation for managing criminal history records. In addition, he has provided policy support to special studies focusing on the information practices of sealing and purging criminal history record information; media access to criminal justice information; and improving criminal history record disposition reporting. Mr. Woodard also was the project coordinator of a contract with the FBI and principal author of a report pursuant to that contract titled, “A Study of Non-Criminal Justice Access to and Use of the Interstate Identification Index.” Mr. Woodard has conducted projects to audit the security and privacy policies and procedures and data quality levels of major State repositories of criminal history records. In addition, he has designed data quality audit programs to be conducted by State audit officials at both the State repository and local agency levels. Prior to his association with SEARCH, Mr. Woodard served as President of Studies in Justice; Associate Deputy Attorney General for Legislation and Congressional

Appendix A-11 Appendix B

Federal Bureau of Investigation List of Nonserious Offenses Federal Bureau of Investigation List of Nonserious Offenses*

Abusive Language Inadequate Brakes Alms Solicitation Inquiry (unaccompanied by criterion charge) Amnesia Interview Begging Intoxication Breach of Peace Investigation (unaccompanied by criterion charge) Card Game Playing Investigation - Mental Careless or Reckless Driving (as long as driver under Jaywalking influence of drugs or liquor, hit and run, vehicular Juvenile Charge** manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter or Juvenile Commitment** manslaughter not involved) Juvenile Offender** Civil Commitment Late Hours Criminal Violation Loafer Curfew Registration Lodger Detention Only Loitering Detoxification Lottery Playing Dice Game Playing Lunacy (unless print pertains to major charge) Disregarding Traffic Signals Mandatory Appearance Disturbance Material Witness Disturbing Public Worship Medical Treatment Disturbing the Peace Mental Dog Laws Minor in Bar Drag Racing Minor in Consumption Driving while License Suspended or Revoked Minor in Gambling House Drunk (not traffic charges) Minor in Possession - Alcohol Drunk in or about Auto Misrepresenting Age (liquor) Drunk in Public Restroom or Restaurant Mooching Drunk on Highway Narcotics Registration Ex-Con Registration Negligent Driving Failure to Give Good Account Failure to Identify Failure to Operate in Prudent Manner (auto) Failure to Register in Hotel or Register in Hotel with Someone Other than Husband or Wife Failure to Yield for Emergency Vehicle, Blue Light, or Siren False Fire Alarm Felony Registration Fireworks Fishing without a License For Identification Purposes *This list is not all-inclusive; other charges similar in General Principles nature may not appear in list. Going through Red Light Hitchhiking **Juvenile Arrests (charges) will be accepted as long Illegal Consumption of Beer as the offense for which the juvenile is charged or Illegal Possession of Beer detained is clearly stated, for example, “JUVENILE ARREST - BURGLARY.”

Appendix B-1 No Driver’s License (Note: Operating Auto with Altered Sleeping in a Subway License considered as Serious Charge) Speeding No Inspection Sticker or Expired Sticker State Work Furlough No Visible Means Suspect Obstructing Traffic Suspicion (unaccompanied by criterion charge) Operating Auto without License Suspicious Person Panhandling Traffic Violations (minor traffic, vehicle and licensing Parking Warrants charges) Patient (Note: Unless print pertains to Major Charge; Train Riding (hobo) that is, murder, rape, etc.) Tramp Peace Bond Transient Peace Warrant Truancy Possession of Lottery Tickets, Policy Slips, or Numbers Trusty Commitment Possession of Open Bottle or Container Urinating in Public Probation or Parole Check Uninsured Motor Vehicle Profane Language Unlawful Blood Alcohol Content or Count (alone only; Public Intoxication not with driving charges) Public Nuisance Vagabond or Rogue Purchasing Liquor as a Minor Vagrancy Rebooked on Suspicion Venereal Control Registration Runaway Visiting a Common Nuisance Safekeeping, Skusm, Sak Voluntary Commitment Sex Registration Walking on Highway Sleeper Wayward

Appendix B-2 Appendix C

Sample Transmission Format for the Interstate Exchange of Criminal History Records

(The transmission format that follows is a sample of the format adopted by the Task Force. The fully-developed format is not complete at this time. When completed, the transmission format will be synchronized with the presentation format to ensure that all data elements are included and consistent. The final operational version also will be coordinated with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System.) Sample Transmission Format for the Interstate Exchange of Criminal History Records

Introduction — Logical records of the rap sheet logical file The first logical record acts as an index to the remainder of Purpose the file, specifying the number of records and their The following outlines a possible transmission format for “names.” In the parlance of the standard, this is called a the interstate exchange of criminal history records. “type-1 record.”

The operational setting The second logical record contains data describing the An authorized user of criminal history information in one person who is the record subject; it also memorializes the State queries the national database, the Interstate history of custody and supervision for that person. In the Identification Index (III), and determines the record subject parlance of the standard, this is called a “type-2 record.” for whom the criminal history record is required. The subject has a multistate record; all parts of the criminal An additional logical record is provided for each arrest history record are in various State repositories (not at the cycle. This record describes the arrest, all charges Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)). The inquiring State emanating from that arrest, and the disposition of those desires to assemble the fragments into an integrated record, charges. Each of these is also a type-2 record. edit it partially by computer and partially by visual scrutiny, and present it to the inquirer in a single State- — Standard separators standard presentation format. (ASCII 1C hex) is the file separator, which separates logical records within a logical file. The single General structure of the format type-1 record and each type-2 record end with the file — Standardization separator character. A national standard transmission format for fingerprint- related information has been approved nationally, and the (ASCII 1D hex) is the group separator, which FBI has published specifications for its use in submitting separates fields within a logical record. Each field contains fingerprint cards to the Integrated Automated Fingerprint a field number, a colon, the field contents, and a separator Identification System (IAFIS).1 (which is the group separator except for the final field of a logical record, which is terminated by the file separator). This document extends the concept from an arrest fingerprint card to a criminal history record. Within the (ASCII 1E hex) is the record separator, separating conceptual framework of the standard, a criminal history sub-fields within a field. For example, if two dates of birth record can be thought of as a “logical file.” This file is are in the criminal history record, they would be comprised of several “logical records.” Each of these transmitted in a single field with the two values separated records, in turn, is comprised of “fields” and each of the by the separator. fields is, in turn, divided into “information items.” (ASCII 1F hex) is the unit separator, separating information items within a single field or sub-field. For example, in the logical record which describes an arrest, there is a field called “arrest agency and case number”

which contains two sub-fields — the code for the arresting 1 IAFIS will govern the transmission of fingerprint card agency and the case number assigned to the arrest by that data between State identification bureaus and the National Fingerprint File (NFF). The specifications are published in the agency. These two sub-fields are separated by the unit “Proposed ANSI/NIST-CSL 1-1993 American National separator. Standard for Information Systems - Data Format for the Interchange of Fingerprint Information,” dated June 17, 1993; and the “Electronic Fingerprint Transmission Specification,” dated April 1993, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division.

Appendix C-1 Components of the sample rap Field 1.07 Destination agency sheet transmission format This mandatory field contains the identifier of the organization to receive the transmission, normally the State central repository, in the form of the 10-character The following contains sample data in a sample rap sheet ORI of the organization. transmission format. States called “SA” and “SY” are used Example: 1.07:SY12345678 in the example data. The components of the sample transmission format are: records and fields contained in the Field 1.08 Originating agency identifier rap sheet file; the transmission format; and the conversion This mandatory field contains the identifier of the to presentation format. organization transmitting the rap sheet, normally the State central repository, in the form of a 10-character ORI. Records and fields contained Example: 1.08:SA23456789 in the rap sheet file — Type-1 Logical record Field 1.10 Transaction control reference Each rap sheet file must contain a single type-1 record. The This mandatory field returns the transaction control number contents are already defined by the national standard. indicated in the rap sheet request. This must be the last item in the type-1 record and is terminated with a file Field 1.01 Logical record length separator rather than a group separator. This mandatory field contains the total number of bytes in Example: 1.10:ABC876Z98 the type-1 record, including separators. Example: 1.01:118 — Type-2 Logical record: identification segment Field 1.02 Version number Field 2.001 Logical record length This mandatory four-character field contains the version This mandatory field contains the total length of the type-2 number of the standard format. record, including separators. Example: 1.02:0100 Example: 2.001:561

Field 1.03 File content Field 2.002 Image designation character This mandatory field lists each of the logical records in the This mandatory field contains a positive integer which logical file. For the type-1 record, it shows two items: the defines the relative order in which the type-2 records are to type number (1 in this example), and the number of other be considered. In the examples in this document, an image records in the file (4 in this example); for each type-2 designation character (IDC) of 0 is assigned to the record, it shows the record type and the image designation identification data, 1 to data about the first arrest, 2 for data character (IDC) of the record (the IDC specifies the order in concerning the second arrest, and so forth. which the type-2 records are to be considered in the Example: 2.002:0 computer analysis). Example showing four type-2 records with Field 2.1001 Caveat statements IDCs of 0, 1, 2, and 3: This optional field contains the numbers corresponding to 1.03:142021 a national list of prewritten caveat statements pertaining to 2223 the use of the record. For example, the inquiry may have been based on fingerprints, or not. [Note: This field is not Field 1.04 Type of transaction defined in the electronic fingerprint card specification.] This mandatory field contains an identifier of the transaction type which defines the later processing for this Field 2.014 FBI number logical file. This field contains the FBI number of the record subject. Example: 1.04:RAP No multiples. Example: 2.014:123456H8 Field 1.05 Date This mandatory field contains the date on which the rap sheet was transmitted in form yyyymmdd. Example: 1.05:19941225

Appendix C-2 Field 2.015 State identification number Field 2.022 Date of birth This field contains the State identification number of the Date born yyyymmdd. Multiples allowed. [Note: subject. Either this field or 2.014 is mandatory. No Consideration should be given to modifying this format to multiples. separate year from month from day with .] Example: 2.015:SA1234567J Example: 2.022:19660608

Field 2.016 Social Security number Field 2.024 Sex This field contains the Social Security number of the Sex code. No multiples. [Note: The sex code in the FBI record subject. Multiples allowed. specification is unlikely to be accepted for broader EDI Example: 2.016:390303962 use.] Example: 2.024:M Field 2.017 Miscellaneous number First three characters coded, then up to 12 free. Multiples Field 2.025 Race allowed. Race code. No multiples. Example: 2.017:CG-987654321PP- Example: 2.025:W 050477794 Field 2.026 Scars, marks, tattoos, amputations Field 2.018 Name2 This field contains 10-character notations from a list of Name in four sub-fields: last, first, middle, generation. No standard abbreviations. Multiples allowed. [Note: FBI multiples. [Note: This field is defined with different specification does not provide for description.] separators than the electronic fingerprint card to Example: 2026:[TBD] need code table: Miss L correspond with electronic data interchange (EDI) ArmTat L Ankl practice; hopefully, the FBI specification will be modified.] Field 2.027 Height Example: 2.018:SchultzJohnM Height in feet and inches. Example: 2.027:602 Field 2.019 Aliases3 Names with each name in four sub-fields: last, first, Field 2.029 Weight middle, generation. Multiples allowed. Weight in pounds. No multiples. Example: Example: 2.029:185 2.019:SmithJohnMartin SchultzJohnMartinJr Field 2.031 Eyes Eye color code. No multiples. Field 2.020 Place born Example: 2.031:BLU Place of birth code. Multiples allowed. Example: 2.020:WI Field 2.032 Hair Hair color code. No multiples. Field 2.021 Country of citizenship Example 2.032:BRO Country code. Multiples allowed Example: 2.021:US Field 2.033 Fingerprint classification 20-character NCIC code. No multiples. Example: 2.033:PIPMPOCICM1415116114

Field 2.035 Palm print available flag Y/N. No multiples. [Note: The FBI specification does not allow for naming the agency holding the prints.] Example: 2.035:Y

2 The format is different from the FBI fingerprint Field 2.036 Photo available flag specification (use of unit separators rather than comma and Y/N. No multiples. [Note: The FBI specification does not spaces), and suggests change of the FBI specification. allow for naming the agency holding the photo.] 3 The format is different (see Name format above). Example: 2.036:Y

Appendix C-3 Field 2.039 Employer and address Field 2.999 Record type Two sub-fields: date reported in form yyyymmdd, and free This mandatory field contains the record type for the text up to 120 characters. Multiples allowed. [Note: The identification segment. FBI specification does not provide for date of Example: 2.999:IDENT information.] Example: 2.039:19920214City Heating, 123 The identification segment constitutes one type-2 record Main St., Central City, SA19930303 and ends with the file separator replacing the final Star Electrical Co., No. 7 City Ctr., group separator. Farmville, SA — Type-2 record: Arrest segment Field 2.040 Occupation A separate type-2 record describes each arrest. Two sub-fields: date reported in form yyyymmdd, and free text up to 50 characters. Multiples allowed. [Note: The Field 2.001 Logical record length FBI specification does not provide for date of This mandatory field contains the total length of the type-2 information.] record, including separators. Example: 2.040:19920214Plumber Example: 2.001:254 19930303Electrician Field 2.002 Image designation character Field 2.041 Subject residence This mandatory field identifies the relative position of the Two sub-fields: date residence reported in form yyyymmdd, record in the rap sheet. For example, the first arrest could and free text up to 120 characters. Multiples allowed. have an IDC of 1, the second an IDC of 2. [Note: The FBI specification does not provide for date of Example: 2.002:1 information.] Example: 2.041:199202143021 W. Atlas Field 2.015 State identification number St., Central City, SA19930303925 This mandatory field contains the State identification Cayuga Ave., Farmville, SA number of the record subject. No multiples. Example: 2015:SA1234567J Field 2.1002 Miscellaneous comments A free field of 120 characters. Multiples allowed. [Note: Field 2.210 Arrest name FBI specification does not provide for this field.] This field contains the name in four sub-fields: last, first, Example: 2.1002:AFIS fingerprints available, SA middle, generation. No multiples. Dept. of Justice.Subject stutters, limps. Example: 2.210:SchultzJohnM

Field 2.051 Custody/supervision status Field 2.212 Arrest date Free-text status and status start date in form yyyymmdd. This mandatory field contains the date of arrest in form Multiples allowed. yyyymmdd. No multiples. Example: 2.051:Parole19910608 Example: 2.212:19930704

Field 2.052 Custody/supervision history Field 2.214 Arrest agency and name Three sub-fields: literal description of the custody or This field contains two sub-fields: the 10-character ORI of supervision, date of start, and date of end. Multiples the arresting agency, and the case number within that allowed. agency. No multiples. Example: 2.052:Prison19850605 Example: 19910607Parole19910608 2.214:SA1234567894610897 NA Field 2.216 Prosecuting agency and case Field 2.298 Felon flag This field contains two sub-fields: the 10-character ORI of Y/N. No multiples. If subject has been convicted of one or the prosecuting agency, and the case number within that more felony charges, this flag is set to Y. agency. No multiples. Example: 2.298:Y Example: 2.216:SA8765432194010157

Appendix C-4 Field 2.218 Court and case This field contains two sub-fields: the 10-character ORI of the court, and the docket number within that court. No multiples. Example: 2.218:SA987654324587A87

Field 2.220 Charges This field contains, for each charge of the arrest, seven information items: the charge literal at initiation, the charge severity code at initiation, the disposition date, the charge literal at disposition, the charge severity code at disposition, the disposition literal, and the sentence literal. Example: 2.220:BurglaryF 19930715Possess Burglary ToolsM ConvictedFine200,Jail6mo TrespassM 19930715TrespassM DismissedNull

Field 2.999 Record type This mandatory field identifies the record as an arrest segment. Example: 2.999:ARR

Appendix C-5 Transmission format

— Type-1 record defines the rap sheet file 1.01:118 1.02:0100 1.03:14202122 23 1.04:RAP 1.05:19941225 1.07:SY12345678 1.08:SA23456789 1.10:ABC876Z98

— Type-2 record transmits identification and custody/supervision data 2.001:561 2.002:0 2.014:123456H8 2.015:SA1234567J 2.016:390303962 2.017:CG-987654321PP-050477794 2.018:SchultzJohnM 2.019:SmithJohnMartin SchultzJohnMartinJr 2.020:WI 2.021:US 2.022:19660608 2.024:M 2.025:W 2.026:Miss L ArmTat L Ankl 2.027:602 2.029:185 2.031:BLU 2.032:BRO 2.033:PIPMPOCICM1415116114 2.035:Y 2.036:Y 2.039:19920214City Heating, 123 Main St., Central City, SA 19930303Star Electrical Co., No. 7 City Ctr., Farmville, SA 2.040:19920214Plumber19930303Electrician 2.041:199202143021 W. Atlas St., Central City, SA 19930303925 Cayuga Ave., Farmville, SA 2.1002:AFIS fingerprints available, SA Dept. of Justice.Subject stutters, limps. 2.051:Parole19910608 2.052:Prison1985060519910607 Parole19910608NA 2.298:Y 2.999:IDENT

Appendix C-6 — Type-2 record transmits one arrest, its charges and disposition data 2.001:254 2.002:1 2.015:SA1234567J 2.210:SchultzJohnM 2.212:19930704 2.214:SA1234567894610897 2.216:SA8765432194010157 2.218:SA987654324587A87 2.220:BurglaryF 19930715Possess Burglary ToolsM ConvictedFine200,Jail6mo TrespassM 19930715TrespassM DismissedNull 2.999:ARR

— Type-2 record transmits another arrest, its charges and dispositions 2.001:145 2.002:2 2.210:SchultzJohnM 2.015:SA1234567J 2.212:19940201 2.214:SAPD01928394021876 2.216:SAPR91827312345-A6 2.220:RapeF19940205 RapeFDeclined prosecuteNA 2.999:ARR

Appendix C-7 Conversion to presentation format

Criminal History Record SA Department of Justice December 25, 1994

Name(s) Sex Race Date(s) of Birth John M Schultz Male White June 8, 1966 John Martin Smith John Martin Schultz Jr.

Height Weight Hair Eyes Scars, Marks, Tattoos, Amputations 6ft 2in 185 lbs Brown Blue Missing Left Arm Tattoo Left Ankle Place Born Citizenship WI US

Fingerprints Palm Print Photo Avail PIPMPOCICM Avail Yes 1415116114 Yes

State Ident Nr FBI Nr SocSecNr Misc. Nr(s) SA1234567J 123456H8 390303962 CG-987654321 PP-050477794

Employer(s) February 14, 1992: City Heating, 123 Main St., Central City, SA March 3, 1993: Star Electrical Co., No. 7 City Ctr., Farmville, SA

Occupation(s) February 14, 1992: Plumber March 3, 1993: Electrician

Residence(s) February 14, 1992: 3021 W. Atlas St., Central City, SA March 3, 1993: 925 Cayuga Ave., Farmville, SA

Miscellaneous Comments AFIS fingerprints available, SA Dept. of Justice. Subject stutters, limps.

Custody/Supervision Status Parole from June 8, 1991

Custody/Supervision History Prison from June 5, 1985 to June 7, 1991 Parole from June 8, 1991 to unknown date

Convicted of Felony Charge(s) Yes

Appendix C-8 Arrest 1: July 4, 1993 Arrest - Farmdale Police Dept (SA12345678), Case Nr 94610897 Prosecutor - Farm County Prosecutor (SA87654321), Case Nr 94010157 Court - Farm County Muni Court (SA98765432), Docket 4587A87 Charge 1.1: Initial Felony charge of Burglary Disposed Misdemeanor charge of Possess Burglary Tools Convicted July 15, 1993 Fine 200, Jail 6 mo Charge 1.2 Initial Misdemeanor charge Trespass Final Misdemeanor charge Trespass Dismissed July 15, 1993

Arrest 2: February 1, 1994 Arrest - Bigtown Police Dept (SAPD019283), Case Nr 940201876 Prosecutor - Bigcounty District Attorney (SAPR918273), Case 12345-A6 Charge 2.1 Initial Felony charge Rape Declined prosecute

End of criminal history record

Appendix C-9 Supplement

Rap Sheet Presentation Format Draft Interim Specification Rap Sheet Presentation Format Draft Interim Specification

Introduction During the time when the presentation format is also used as a transmission method, the specification provides The Report of the National Task Force on Increasing the limited font-selection capability at the receiving computer Utility of the Criminal History Record contains a “Model through a very modest sort of markup-language. When a Interstate Criminal History Record.” The report contains State adheres to the transmission standard, this portion of recommendations for both a presentation format (how the the presentation specification becomes irrelevant. record should look on a screen or page) and a transmission ¥ Section titles must end with two colons (::), and must format (how it should “look” to the computers which send, be the only element on a line; switch and receive it). This document concerns the presentation format. ¥ The cycle number title must end with the equal sign (=), and must be the only element on a line; When both these formats are available in final form, States will probably adopt the transmission standard as a feature ¥ Field and subfield names must end in a colon (:); of participating in the national criminal history system. At that time, States will be free to set their own presentation ¥ Within a cycle, the arrest, court, corrections and standards simply by writing translation formulae from the appeals subsection titles must end with two equal standard transmission standard to their own presentation signs (= =). specification. In the meantime, adherence to the proposed presentation specification would provide a common look Colons and equal signs are not allowed elsewhere in the to rap sheets received from multiple States. specification. Therefore, they may be stripped from the received message, used to trigger special formats, or left in The remainder of this document is a first attempt to define place. Note: it would be easier technically if the font such an interim specification. Readers are assumed to have markings were used to bracket the text (before and after) before them the model interstate criminal history record instead of being placed only after the text. recommended in the cited report as Recommendation 3. Note: This specification does not replicate every case Lines are to be no more than 75 characters long, plus a line cycle listed in Recommendation 3; it uses a sample of the delimiter composed of the two ASCII characters CR, LF cycles from the recommendation. (carriage return plus line feed).

Field testing of this specification is essential before Column line-up is to be accomplished with the ASCII moving toward wide adoption. Of special concern is the space character. Column lineup is to be based on a non- degree to which the broad variety of data structures within proportional character set. criminal history systems can be accommodated, as well as the extent to which the format meets operational Page layout is to be as shown in the example in requirements of the user community. Recommendation 3. If data are not available for a required field, the field will be shown with the value “Unknown”. If data are not available for an optional field, the field is 1. General features of the specification absent and the allocated space for that field remains blank.

The specification is predicated on the assumption that the An ASCII form-feed character is to be included wherever final user of the rap sheet will view a printed copy, 8.5- page breaks are desired in the presentation, and at least inch by 11-inch paper, portrait orientation, 10 characters every 60 lines. per inch, non-proportional font.

The specification permits upper- and lower-case; the receiving computer can convert to upper-only if needed to provide compatibility with some or all printers in the receiving State. Other print characteristics (bold, italics, underscored, etc.) must not be transmitted.

Supplement 1 2. Introduction section Format is January 31, 1966.

The section is required. 3.6. Height field The section must contain the name of the State sending the rap sheet and the date it was sent. This field is optional. It may contain a statement which describes the search Field title is required: Height: criteria upon which the record was selected. A single entry is permitted. It may contain any number of cautionary statements. Format is 5 ft. 11 in. 3.7. Weight field 3. Identification Data section This field is optional. The section is required. Field title is required: Weight: Section title is required: IDENTIFICATION DATA:: A single entry is permitted. The section may not contain data other than the fields Format is 203 lbs. described herein. 3.8. Hair field 3.1. Name field This field is optional. This field is required. Field title is required: Hair: Field title is required: Name: A single entry is permitted. It may have a single entry, or optionally may have Permissible entries are spelled-out versions of the III unlimited multiple entries, each on a separate line, coding manual. when the Aliases field is not used. Maximum field length is 35 characters. 3.9. Eyes field It is in form: First, Middle, Last, Generation, separated by spaces. A period following an initial is This field is optional. optional. Field title is required: Eyes: A single entry is permitted. Permissible entries are spelled-out versions of the III 3.2. Aliases field coding manual.

This field is optional. 3.10. Scars, Marks, Tattoos, Amputations field Field title is required: Aliases: Multiple entries are permitted. This field is optional. It is identical in other respects to the Name field. Field title is required: Scars, Marks, Tattoos, Amputations: 3.3. Sex field Multiple entries are permitted. Format is free-form, maximum length 40 characters. This field is required. Field title is required: Sex: 3.11. Place Born field A single entry is required. Permissible entries are spelled-out versions of the III This field is optional. (Interstate Identification Index) coding manual. Field title is required: Place Born: Multiple entries are permitted. 3.4. Race field Format is free-form, maximum length 30 characters.

This field is required. 3.12. Citizenship field Field title is required: Race: A single entry is required. This field is required. Permissible entries are spelled-out versions of the III Field title is required: Citizenship: coding manual. A single entry is required, and multiple entries are permitted. 3.5. Date of Birth field Free-form, maximum length 20 characters.

This field is required. Field title is required: Date of Birth: A single entry is required, and multiple entries are permitted.

Supplement 2 3.13. Fingerprint Class field 3.21. Photo Avail. field

This field is optional. This field is optional. Field title is required: Fingerprint Class: Field title required: Photo Avail.: Multiple lines are permitted. Multiple entries are permitted. Format is free-form, maximum length 20 characters Format is free-form, maximum length 25 characters. per line. 3.22. DNA Sample Avail. field 3.14. State Ident. No. field This field is optional. This field is required. Field title required: DNA Sample Avail.: Field title is required: State Ident. No.: Multiple entries are permitted. A single entry is required. Format is free-form, maximum length 25 characters. Format is free-form, maximum length 10 characters. 3.23. Occupation field 3.15. FBI No. field This field is optional. This field is optional. Field title required: Occupation: Field title is required: FBI No.: Multiple entries are permitted. A single entry is permitted. Format is free-form, maximum length 30 characters Format is free-form, maximum length 10 characters. (should include date).

3.16. Soc. Sec. No. field 3.24. Employer field

This field is optional. This field is optional. Field title is required: Soc. Sec. No.: Field title required: Employer: Multiple entries are permitted. Multiple entries are permitted. Format is free-form, maximum length 11 characters. Format is free-form, maximum length 60 characters per line, multiple lines permitted (should include 3.17. Driver Lic. No. field date).

This field is optional. 3.25. Residence field Field title is required: Driver Lic. No.: Multiple entries are permitted. This field is optional. Format is two-letter State identifier plus dash plus up Field title is required: Residence: to 17 free-form characters. Multiple entries are permitted. Format is free-form, maximum length 65 characters. 3.18. INS Reg. No. field 3.26. Miscellaneous Comments field This field is optional. This field is optional. Field title is mandatory: INS Reg. No.: Multiple entries are permitted. Multiple entries are permitted. Format is free-form, maximum length 80 characters. Format is free-form, maximum length 15 characters.

3.19. Misc. No. field

This field is optional. Field title is mandatory: Misc. No.: Multiple entries are permitted. Format is free-form, maximum length 25 characters.

3.20. Palm Print Avail. field

This field is optional. Field title is required: Palm Print Avail.: Multiple entries are permitted. Format is free-form, maximum length 25 characters.

Supplement 3 4. Criminal Justice Summary Data 4.7. Violation of Release Conditions field section This field is optional. This section is optional. Field title is required: Violation of Release If present, the section title is required: CRIMINAL Conditions: JUSTICE SUMMARY DATA:: A single entry is permitted. Format is numeric 0-999. 4.1. Felony Convictions field 4.8. Bail Revocation field This field is required. Field title is required: Felony Convictions: This field is optional. A single entry is required. Field title is required: Bail Revocation: Format is a number or unknown; number enumerates A single entry is permitted. charges (each count is a charge). Format is numeric 0-999.

4.2. Total No. Arrests/Indictments field 4.9. Probation Revocation field This field is optional. Field title is required: Total No. Arrests/Indictments: This field is optional. A single entry is permitted. Field title is required: Probation Revocation: Format is free-form, maximum length 35 characters A single entry is permitted. (number, possible breakdown by type). Format is numeric 0-999.

4.3. Total No. Convictions field 4.10. Parole Revocation field

This field is optional. This field is optional. Field title is required: Total No. Convictions: Field title is required: Parole Revocation: A single entry is permitted. A single entry is permitted. Format is free-form, maximum length 35 characters Format is numeric 0-999. (number, possible breakdown by type). 4.11. Caution field 4.4. Date of Last Arrest field This field is optional. This field is optional. Field title is required: Caution: Field title is required: Date of Last Arrest: Multiple entries are permitted. A single entry is permitted. Format is free-form, maximum length 70 characters. Format is January 31, 1994.

4.5. Last Reported Event field

This field is optional. Field title is required: Last Reported Event: A single entry is permitted. Format is free-form, maximum length 60 characters per line, multiple lines permitted, must include date in form January 31, 1995.

4.6. Failure to Appear field

This field is optional. Field title is required: Failure to Appear: A single entry is permitted. Format is numeric 0-999.

Supplement 4 5. Criminal History Data section 5.1.1.6. Arresting Agency field

This section is required. This field is required. Section title is required: CRIMINAL HISTORY DATA:: Field title is required: Arresting Agency: A single entry is required. 5.1. Cycle No. designator Format: Free-form, including ORI, with total length of 50 characters. Cycle numbers are required: Cycle No. nn: Format is Cycle No. = 0-999. 5.1.1.7. Arresting Agency Case No. A cycle is made up of subsections for arrest, field prosecution, court, corrections and appeal. This field is optional. 5.1.1. Arrest/Charge Data subsection Field title is required: Arresting Agency Case No.: Subsection is required. A single entry is permitted. Subsection title is required: Format is free-form, maximum length 15 Arrest/Charge Data= = characters. Single subsection per cycle. 5.1.1.8. Arresting Agency Offender 5.1.1.1. Name Used field Ident. No. field

This field is optional. This field is optional. Field name is required: Name Used: Field title is required: Arresting Agency A single entry is permitted. Offender Ident. No.: Format is same as for Name field in A single entry is permitted. Identification Data section. Format is free-form, maximum length 15 characters. 5.1.1.2. Date of Arrest field 5.1.1.9. Arrest Charges field This field is required Field name is required: Date of Arrest: This field is required. A single entry is required. Field title is required: Arrest Charges: Format is January 31, 1991. A single entry is required, and multiple entries are permitted. 5.1.1.3. Arrest Type field Format is: first three characters are charge sequence number plus space, remainder free- This field is optional. form, maximum 50 characters per line, Field name is required: Arrest Type: multiple lines permitted. A single entry is permitted. [Comment: This format does not provide for Format is free-form, maximum length 20 mandatory inclusion of severity, citation, characters. offense category code; this should be considered before adoption.] 5.1.1.4. Date of Offense field 5.1.2. Prosecution Data subsection This field is optional. Field title is required: Date of Offense: This subsection is optional. A single entry is permitted. Subsection title is required: Prosecution Data= = Format is January 31, 1991. Single subsection per cycle.

5. 1.1.5. Case Tracking No. field 5.1.2.1. Prosecuting Agency field

This field is optional. This field is required. Field title is required: Case Tracking No.: Field title is required: Prosecuting Agency: A single entry is permitted. A single entry is required. Format is free-form, maximum length 15 Format: Free-form, including ORI, with total characters. length of 50 characters.

Supplement 5 5.1.2.2. Prosecuting Agency Case No. 5.1.3.3. Charges Disposed of field field This field is required. This field is optional. Field title is required: Charges Disposed of: Field title is required: Prosecuting Agency Multiple fields per cycle are permitted. Case No.: Field is composed entirely of subfields. A single entry is permitted. Format is free-form, maximum length 15 5.1.3.3.1. Disposed Charge characters. subfield

5.1.2.3. Date of Action field Subfield is required. A single subfield per field is required. This field is required. Format is: first three characters are Field title required: Date of Action: charge sequence number plus space, A single entry is required. remainder free-form, maximum 50 Format is January 31, 1995. characters per line, multiple lines permitted. 5.1.2.4. Description of Action field 5.1.3.3.2. Disposition subfield This field is required. Field title is required: [Description of Subfield is required. Action]: Subfield title is required: Disposition: [Note : Field title describes action taken by A single subfield per field is required. prosecutor, such as “Charge 02 Changed to:” Format is free-form, maximum length 30 or “Disposition: Declined to Prosecute all characters. Charges.”] A single entry is required. 5.1.3.3.3. Disposition Date subfield Format is free-form, maximum length 50 characters per line, multiple lines permitted. Subfield is required. Subfield title is required: Disposition 5.1.3. Court Data subsection Date: A single subfield per field is required. Subsection is optional. Format is January 31, 1995. Subsection title is required: Court Data= = 5.1.3.3.4. Sentence subfield 5.1.3.1. Court field Subfield is optional. This field is required. Subfield title is required: Sentence: Field title is required: Court: A single subfield per field is permitted. A single entry is required. Format is free-form, maximum 60 Format: Free-form, including ORI, with total characters per line, multiple lines length of 50 characters. permitted.

5.1.3.2. Court Case No. field 5.1.3.3.5. Sentence Date subfield

This field is required. Subfield is optional. Field title is required: Court Case No.: Subfield title is required: Sentence Date: A single entry is required. A single subfield per field is permitted. Format is free-form, maximum length 15 Format is January 31, 1995. characters.

Supplement 6 5.1.4. Corrections Data subsection 5.1.4.6 Description of Action/Date field

This subsection is optional. Note: Some State This field is optional. databases are not organized to allow linking of Field title is required: [Description of corrections data directly to a specific arrest Action]: cycle. These States may present the same data {Note: Field title describes action taken by shown here, in a separate section, section title corrections, such as “Released on Parole,” CORRECTIONS DATA::, immediately before the “Parole Revoked,” “Released at Sentence Criminal History Data section. Expiration.”] A single entry is permitted. Subsection title is required: Corrections Data= = Format is free-form with maximum length 60 Multiple sets of the following fields are characters per line, multiple lines permitted. permitted, separated by a blank line. Date is required in format January 31, 1996.

5.1.4.1. Agency field 5.1.5. Appellate Court Data subsection

This field is required. This subsection is optional. Field title is required: Agency: Subsection title is required: Appellate Data= = A single entry is required. Format: Free-form, including ORI, with total 5.1.5.1. Court field length of 50 characters. This field is required. 5.1.4.2. Inmate Name field Field title is required: Court: A single entry is required. This field is optional. Format: Free-form, including ORI, with total Field title is required: Inmate Name: length of 50 characters. A single entry is permitted. Format is same as Name field in the 5.1.5.2. Court Case No. field Identification Data section. This field is required. 5.1.4.3. Inmate Ident. No. field Field title is required: Court Case No.: A single entry is required. This field is required. Format is free-form, maximum length 15 Field title is required: Inmate Ident. No.: characters. A single entry is required. Format is free-form, maximum length 15 5.1.5.3. Decision field characters. This field is required. 5.1.4.4. Received field Field title is required: Decision: A single entry is required, and multiple This field is required. entries are permitted. Field title is required: Received: Format is free-form, maximum 60 characters A single entry is required. per line, multiple lines permitted. Format is January 31, 1995. 5.1.5.4. Date of Decision field 5.1.4.5. Term field This field is required. This field is optional. Field title is required: Date of Decision: Field title is required: Term: A single entry is required. Multiple entries are permitted. Format is January 31, 1995. Format is free-form, with maximum length 50 characters.

Supplement 7