Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

(outside cover) Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

(inside cover) U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Lawrence A. Greenfeld Acting Director Acknowledgements. This report was prepared by SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, Dr. Francis J. Carney Jr., Chairman, and Gary R. Cooper, Executive Director. The project director was Sheila J. Barton, Director, Law and Policy Program. The report was written by Robert R. Belair, SEARCH General Counsel, and Paul L. Woodard, SEARCH Senior Counsel. Assistance on some sections of the report was provided by Virgil L. Young Jr., Section Chief, and Emmet A. Rathbun, Assistant Section Chief, Criminal Justice Information Services Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation. Support was provided by Jane L. Bassett, Publishing Assistant; Twyla R. Cunningham, Manager, Corporate Communications; Robert L. Marx, Senior System Specialist; and Teresa E. Nyberg, Executive Secretary. The project was conducted under the direction of Carol G. Kaplan, Assistant Deputy Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Report of work performed under BJS Grant No. 92-BJ-CX-K012, awarded to SEARCH Group, Inc., 7311 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, Inc. 1993 The U.S. Department of Justice authorizes any person to reproduce, publish, translate or otherwise use all or any part of the copyrighted material in this publication with the exception of those items indicating they are copyrighted or reprinted by any source other than SEARCH Group, Inc.

The Assistant Attorney General is responsible for matters of administration and management with respect to the OJP agencies: the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Institute of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and the Office for Victims of Crime. The Assistant Attorney General further establishes policies and priorities consistent with the statutory purposes of the OJP agencies and the priorities of the Department of Justice.

ii Foreword

The Bureau of Justice Statistics is pleased to publish Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report. The report is the first descriptive review of the Nation’s criminal history information systems and discusses in nontechnical terms the complex, interrelated network of local, State and Federal information systems that provide criminal history records to both criminal justice and noncriminal justice users. The report is the latest in BJS’s efforts to assist States in improving the quality of criminal history record information and to ensure that accurate data is readily available for operational and research purposes. We hope that the report will be of value to policymakers and practitioners addressing the critical issues relating to criminal history record information which will accompany expanded development of systems for the interstate exchange of this information.

Lawrence A. Greenfeld Acting Director Bureau of Justice Statistics

iii Contents

Glossary G-1 Chapter II 19 Background Overview of 19 State-level systems Introduction 1 Purpose of this report existing 20 Federal-level systems 1 Background criminal history 1 Repositories of criminal record systems history record information 1 —State systems Section 1 20 Establishment of early 2 —Federal systems Evolution of police departments 2 Timely criminal history criminal history 20 Early identification and record information issues record systems recordkeeping systems 2 —Data quality 21 Efforts to establish criminal history 2 —Decentralized recordkeeping record systems 2 —New technologies 21 —LEAA efforts to 3 Content of this report establish State systems 22 —FBI efforts to establish Chapter I 5 Background Federal systems How the criminal justice Section 2 22 Background system works Information 23 Identification information and how it maintained in 23 —Personal description uses criminal the Nation’s 23 —Fingerprints history records criminal history 23 Criminal history information record systems 23 Juvenile record information Section 1 5 Criminal codes and procedures 23 Other information Typical State 6 Police agencies 23 —Interim dispositions criminal justice 6 Local detention facilities 24 — flags system 6 Prosecution agencies 24 — data structure 6 Courts 24 Master name indexes 7 Corrections agencies 24 —Contents, usage 24 —Number of records indexed Section 2 7 Investigation Typical State 7 Section 3 24 Background criminal justice 10 Booking The current 25 Number of records process 11 Initial court appearance status of the 25 —State records 11 Preliminary hearing Nation’s 25 —Federal records 11 Pretrial release decision criminal history 25 Extent of automation 12 review record systems 25 —State criminal history files 12 Grand jury indictment 25 —State criminal fingerprint files 12 Arraignment 26 —Federal files 12 Trial court action 26 Reporting of information 13 Appeal to the repositories 13 Sentencing 26 —Types of information reported 13 Correctional supervision 28 —Reporting requirements 28 —Time frame in which Section 3 14 Background reporting takes place How 14 Police uses 28 Access methods for criminal justice 14 Pretrial release uses authorized requestors practitioners 15 Prosecutor uses 28 —Criminal justice inquiries use criminal 15 Court uses 29 —Noncriminal justice inquiries history records 15 —For bail, pretrial and trial decisions 29 —Computer searches 15 —For sentencing decisions 29 Response times 16 —For probation and parole decisions 16 Corrections uses 16 Types of information needed 17 Time frames within which information is needed

v Section 4 29 Accuracy and completeness Section 2 45 Background The product 31 Linking of arrest and disposition data Automated 45 —Problems with manual of the 31 —Current practice fingerprint fingerprint processing repositories: 31 —Case-tracking systems processing 46 Fingerprint image production The criminal 32 —Charge-tracking systems and transmission history record 32 Content and format 46 —Live-scan devices 32 —Differences in content 46 —Card-scan devices 33 —Differences in format and 46 Use of automated fingerprint terminology identification systems to search files 33 —Problems in deciphering records 46 —AFIS benefits 33 —Calls for reform 47 —State AFISs 47 —Federal AFIS Chapter III 35 Overview of Chapter V 49 Background laws regulating National criminal history criminal history record systems record checks and the Section 1 35 Constitutional doctrines Interstate Constitutional 35 Common law doctrines Identification and common Index law doctrines Section 1 50 Current practice Section 2 36 Federal statutes and regulations Maintenance 50 —Fingerprint submissions Statutory and 36 —Statutes and use of 50 —Disposition submissions regulatory 36 —Regulations current FBI 51 —Extent of automation requirements 36 State statutes and regulations files 51 Authorized users of data 52 Terminal access to FBI files Section 3 37 Federal data quality regulations 52 —Criminal justice inquiries Two key 37 —Completeness provisions 52 —Noncriminal justice inquiries issues — data 37 —Accuracy provisions quality and 38 State data quality laws and strategies Section 2 52 Background dissemination 38 —Mandatory reporting requirements The Interstate 53 Use of III for criminal justice pur- 38 —Transaction log requirements poses 38 —Other requirements Identification 57 Use of III for noncriminal 39 —Data quality strategies Index justice purposes 39 Dissemination of criminal 57 —Revision of State laws and history record information policies necessary 39 —Dissemination for 58 —Uniform dissemination criminal justice purposes standard proposed 39 —Dissemination for noncriminal 58 —Pilot test underway justice purposes 40 —Dissemination trends Section 3 59 Benefits of III participation 41 —Statutory dissemination III system 61 Benefits of NFF participation policies in the early 1990s impact 61 —Duplicate files eliminated 61 —Uniform dissemination standard Chapter IV 43 Background 62 —Faster response times The impact 62 Burdens of III participation of new 62 Expected overall impact technologies Section 4 62 Background Section 1 44 Automated arrest reporting The proposed 62 Emergence of the III compact Automated 44 —Problems with manual reporting III compact 63 —Compact advantages reporting to the 44 —Automation aids in arrest reporting 63 —Compact development status repositories 44 —Benefits 63 Compact provisions 44 Automated disposition reporting 44 —Reporting by local , courts 44 —Reporting by State courts systems 44 —Reporting by State corrections 45 —Benefits

vi prior ` Chapter VI 65 Background Appendix 8 96 Sample criminal history record Federal formats: Florida, Hawaii, Utah, initiatives Virginia and criminal history records Appendix 9 110 Federal Bureau of Investigation/ Bureau of Justice Statistics Section 1 65 IAFIS Recommended Voluntary Reporting FBI system 66 CJIS Division Standards for Improving the Quality upgrades 66 NCIC 2000 of Criminal History Record 66 Short-term goals Information

Section 2 66 Background Appendix 10 112 Overview of State criminal Federal 67 Telephone checks history record systems, 1992 database for 67 Felon database identifying 68 FBI record system enhancement Appendix 11 115 Number of subjects (individual felons 68 Advances in biometric technology offenders) in State criminal history file, 1984, 1989 and 1992 Section 3 68 BJS criminal history record Federal grant improvement program Appendix 12 118 Number of final dispositions reported programs and 69 —Purposes for using grants to State criminal history repository, related 69 —Data quality, system 1983, 1989 and 1992 initiatives improvement strategies 69 —Status of the program Appendix 13 120 Automation of master name index 70 BJA block grant set-aside program and criminal history file, 1989 and 70 —Fund guidelines 1992 70 Reporting alien convictions to INS 71 FBI/BJS voluntary reporting Appendix 14 123 Arrest records with fingerprints, 1989 standards and 1992

Section 4 72 Appendix 15 126 Notice to State criminal history The Brady Bill repository of release of arrested persons without charging, 1989 and 1992 Appendix 1 73 Statutes making possession of a firearm by a convicted Appendix 16 128 Average number of days to process felon a criminal offense arrest data submitted to State criminal history repository, 1989 and Appendix 2 77 Statutes requiring or permitting 1992 prior criminal records to be considered in bail decisions Appendix 17 131 Average number of days to process disposition data submitted to State Appendix 3 80 Statutes authorizing sentencing criminal history repository, 1989 and of persistent recidivists to 1992 enhanced terms as career criminals or habitual criminals Appendix 18 134 Procedures employed by State criminal history repository to Appendix 4 83 Statutes providing for upgraded encourage complete arrest and charges for offenders with prior disposition reporting, 1992 convictions Appendix 19 137 Methods used to link disposition Appendix 5 86 Statutes providing for enhanced information to arrest/charge sentences for offenders with prior information on criminal history convictions record, 1992 Appendix 6 89 Statutes authorizing consideration of criminal history in correctional Appendix 20 140 Data quality audits of State criminal classification and supervision history repository, 1992

Appendix 7 93 Statutes providing that parole Appendix 21 143 Interstate and Federal-State eligibility shall or may be affected by Compact on the Exchange of Criminal History Records for vii Noncriminal Justice Purposes Glossary of Terms

Automated Fingerprint Identification System Criminal History Record Information (CHRI) or (AFIS): An automated system for searching fingerprint Criminal History Record Information System: A files and transmitting fingerprint images. AFIS record (or the system maintaining such records) which computer equipment can scan fingerprint impressions includes individual identifiers and describes an (or utilize electronically transmitted fingerprint individual’s and subsequent dispositions. images) and automatically extract and digitize ridge Criminal history records do not include intelligence or details and other identifying characteristics in investigative data or sociological data such as drug sufficient detail to enable the computer’s searching use history. CHRI systems usually include information and matching components to distinguish a single on juveniles if they are tried as adults in criminal fingerprint from thousands or even millions of courts, but in most cases do not include data fingerprints previously scanned and stored in digital describing involvement of an individual in the juvenile form in the computer’s memory. The process justice system. All data in CHRI systems are usually eliminates the manual searching of fingerprint files backed by fingerprints of the record subjects to provide and increases the speed and accuracy of ten-print positive identification. State legislation varies processing (arrest fingerprint cards and noncriminal concerning disclosure of criminal history records for justice applicant fingerprint cards). AFIS equipment noncriminal justice purposes. (See Chapter II.) also can be used to identify individuals from “latent” (crime scene) fingerprints, even fragmentary prints of Data Quality: The extent to which criminal history single fingers in some cases. Digital fingerprint images records are complete, accurate and timely. The key generated by AFIS equipment can be transmitted concern in data quality is the completeness of records electronically to remote sites, eliminating the and the extent to which records include dispositions as necessity of mailing fingerprint cards and providing well as arrest and charge information. Other concerns remote access to AFIS fingerprint files. (See pages 25- include the timeliness of data reporting to State and 26 and 46-47.) Federal repositories, the timeliness of data entry by the repositories and the readability of criminal history Bureau of Justice Statistics Criminal History records. (See pages 29-34, 37-39 and 59.) Record Improvement (BJS CHRI) Program: The $27 million grant program, administered by the Bureau Felon Identification for Firearms Sales (FIFS): of Justice Statistics, under which awards were made to The system and procedures developed by the FBI and all 50 States to improve the quality of criminal State officials for the identification of felons who records, flag felony records and increase participation attempt to purchase firearms. FIFS includes the in the Interstate Identification Index (III). Awards were establishment of a felony flagging system in the III made over a three-year period: fiscal years 1990, 1991 system to identify offenders who have been charged and 1992. (See pages 68-70.) with or convicted of . When implemented, system users will use a special inquiry code and Central Repository: The database (or the agency responses will include a code indicating that the housing the database) which maintains criminal individual has a felony , has no felony history records on all State offenders. Records include conviction or pending felony arrest, or has a record of fingerprint files and files containing identification unknown nature and status. One State, Virginia, is segments and notations of arrests and dispositions. The presently participating in a test to flag all records in central repository is generally responsible for State- the FBI index. (See page 66). level identification of arrestees, and commonly serves as the central control terminal for contact with FBI Felony or Serious Misdemeanor: The category of record systems. Inquiries from local agencies for a offenses for which fingerprints and criminal history national record check (for criminal justice or firearm information are accepted by the FBI and entered in check purposes) are routed to the FBI via the central the Bureau’s files, including the III system. Serious repository. Although usually housed in the Department misdemeanor is defined to exclude certain minor of Public Safety, the central repository may in some offenses such as drunkenness or minor traffic offenses. States be maintained by the State Police or some (See page 50.) other State agency. (See page 19.)

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Glossary 1 Interstate Identification Index (III): An “index- holding the data. (That is, the law of the State which pointer” system for the interstate exchange of criminal is inquiring about the data — rather than the law of history records. Under III, the FBI maintains an the State which originated the data — governs its identification index to persons arrested for felonies or use.) In some cases, ratification of the compact will serious under State or Federal law. The have the effect of amending existing State legislation index includes identification information (for example, governing interstate record dissemination, since most name, date of birth, race, sex, etc.), FBI Numbers and States do not currently authorize dissemination to all State Identification Numbers (SIDs) from each State of the Federal agencies and out-of-state users holding information about an individual. Search authorized under the compact. At present, noncriminal inquiries from criminal justice agencies nationwide justice inquiries are handled by the FBI from its files are transmitted automatically via State of voluntarily contributed State arrest and disposition telecommunications networks and the FBI’s National records. This requires that the FBI maintain duplicates Crime Information Center (NCIC) telecommunications of State records and generally results in less complete lines. Searches are made on the basis of name and records being provided, since FBI files of State other identifiers. The process is entirely automated and records are not always complete due to reporting takes approximately five seconds to complete. If a hit deficiencies. The FBI cannot abandon the duplicate is made against the Index, record requests are made records without a formal compact, however, since using SIDs or FBI Numbers and data are automatically subsequent failure of a State to continue participation retrieved from each repository holding records on the after cessation of the FBI’s State offender files would individual and forwarded to the requesting agency. At jeopardize future noncriminal justice services to the present, 25 States participate in III and the system Federal and State agencies that now rely on those operates for criminal justice inquiries only. Responses files. The compact has been approved by the U.S. are provided from FBI files where the State originating Attorney General and it is expected that it will be the record is not a participant in III. Participation considered by the U.S. Congress in 1993 or 1994. After requires that the State maintain an automated criminal Congressional approval, the compact will be history record system capable of interfacing with the submitted for ratification by State legislatures. (See III system and capable of responding automatically to Chapter V.) all interstate and Federal/State record requests. If extended to cover noncriminal justice inquiries, as Juvenile Justice Records: Official records of planned, the III system would eliminate the need for juvenile justice adjudications. Most adult criminal duplicate recordkeeping at the Federal and State level history record systems do not accept such records, since it would no longer be necessary for the FBI to which are frequently not supported by fingerprints and maintain records on State offenders. At present, III which usually are confidential under State law. ensures higher quality criminal justice responses Pursuant to an order dated July 15, 1992, the FBI now because, in most cases, reply data are supplied accepts, and will disseminate, juvenile records on the directly by the State from which the record originates. same basis as adult records. States are not required to (For complete information, see Chapter V.) submit such records to the FBI, however. (See page 23.) Interstate Identification Index (III) Compact: An interstate and Federal/State compact designed to Live-scan and Card-scan: Automated devices for facilitate the exchange of criminal history data among generating and transmitting fingerprint images. Live- States for noncriminal justice purposes and to scan devices capture fingerprint images directly from eliminate the need for the FBI to maintain duplicate subjects’ fingers, which are rolled onto scanning pads. data about State offenders. Under the compact, the The devices can print out multiple fingerprint cards or operation of this system would be overseen by a can transmit electronic fingerprint images to remote policymaking council comprised of representatives of sites for printout or direct use in automated fingerprint the Federal and State governments, as well as system identification computers. Card scanners scan standard users. The key concept underlying the compact is inked fingerprint cards and can transmit electronic agreement among all States that all criminal history images, with related textual data, to remote sites for information (except sealed records) will be provided printout or direct use. (See page 46.) in response to noncriminal justice requests from another State — regardless of whether the information being requested would be permitted to be disseminated for a similar noncriminal justice purpose within the State

Glossary 2 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Master Name Index (MNI): A subject identification technologies are implemented), the FBI will enter the index maintained by criminal record repositories that individual’s fingerprint impressions in the NFF includes names and other identifiers for all persons about whom a record is held in the systems. As of 1992, almost all State MNIs were automated and included almost 100 percent of record subjects in the repositories. The automated name index is the key to rapidly identifying persons who have criminal records for such purposes as presale firearm checks, criminal investigations or bailsetting. MNIs may include “felony flags,” which indicate whether record subjects have arrests or convictions for felony offenses. (See pages 24 and 67.)

National Crime Information Center (NCIC): An automated database of criminal justice and justice- related records maintained by the FBI. The database includes the “hot files” of wanted and missing persons, stolen vehicles and identifiable stolen property, including firearms. Access to NCIC files is through central control terminal operators in each State that are connected to NCIC via dedicated telecommunications lines maintained by the FBI. Local agencies and officers on the beat can access the State control terminal via the State law enforcement network. Inquiries are based on name and other nonfingerprint identification. Most criminal history inquiries of the III system are made via the NCIC telecommunications system. NCIC data may be provided only for criminal justice and other specifically authorized purposes. For criminal history searches, this includes criminal justice employment, employment by Federally chartered or insured banking institutions or securities firms, and use by State and local governments for purposes of employment and licensing pursuant to a State statute approved by the U.S. Attorney General. Inquiries regarding presale firearm checks are included as criminal justice uses. (See page 22 and Chapter V.)

National Fingerprint File (NFF): A system and procedures designed as a component of the III system, which, when fully implemented, would establish a totally decentralized system for the interstate exchange of criminal history records. The NFF will contain fingerprints of Federal offenders and a single set of fingerprints on State offenders from each State in which an offender has been arrested for a felony or a serious misdemeanor. Under the NFF concept, States will forward only the first-arrest fingerprints of an individual to the FBI accompanied by other identification data such as name, date of birth, etc. Fingerprints for subsequent arrests would not be forwarded. Disposition data on the individual would also be retained at the State repository and would not be forwarded to the FBI. Upon receipt of the first-arrest fingerprint cards (or electronic images when new

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Glossary 3 and will enter the person’s name and identifiers in the NCIC Advisory Policy Board (APB): A 30-member III, together with an FBI Number and a State advisory committee, comprised of criminal justice Identification Number for each State maintaining a officials, representatives of criminal justice record on the individual. Charge and disposition associations and user representatives, that provides information on State offenders will be maintained only policy input to guide the FBI in the administration of at the State level and State repositories will be the NCIC system. The APB meets at least twice a required to respond to all authorized record requests year to consider issues originating from periodic concerning these individuals for both criminal justice meetings of NCIC Control Terminal Officers in the and noncriminal justice purposes. States would have to four NCIC Regions or from other sources, such as release all data on record subjects for noncriminal NCIC participants meetings, technical meetings or justice inquiries regardless of whether the data could FBI/NCIC staff. At present, the FBI is reviewing the be released for similar purposes within the State. The roles of its advisory committees with a view to NFF concept is presently being tested in two States, restructuring them in accordance with ongoing Florida and North Carolina. Both of these States are in initiatives to upgrade and expand FBI information a position to conduct the test since they have systems. (See pages 22 and 34.) nonrestrictive laws governing release of data for noncriminal justice purposes. (See Chapter V.) Positive Identification: Identification of an individual using biometric characteristics which are National Law Enforcement unique and not subject to alteration. Basically, in Telecommunications System (NLETS): A present usage, the term refers to identification by computerized high-speed message switching system fingerprints but it may also include identification by maintained by the States which provides for the retinal images, voiceprints or other techniques. interstate exchange of criminal justice-related Positive identification is to be distinguished from information between local, State and Federal criminal identification using name, sex, date of birth, etc., as justice agencies. NLETS supports inquiries into State shown on a document subject to alteration or criminal history files, motor vehicle registration files, counterfeit such as a birth certificate, social security drivers license files and other State databases. It also card or drivers license. Because individuals can have interfaces with NCIC and other FBI files, the Royal identical or similar names, ages, etc., identifications Canadian Mounted Police, the National Insurance based on such characteristics are not reliable. (See Theft Bureau, the National Center for Missing and pages 20-21.) Exploited Children and other national-level files. State agencies use NLETS for the interstate exchange of Information Act (SCIA): criminal history records. More than 121,000 terminals Federal legislation requiring that States make criminal send and receive more than a quarter-billion messages history records available to certain Federal agencies annually. NLETS is supported by fees paid by user in connection with screening for security clearances. agencies and is set up as a not-for-profit corporation (See page 39.) headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona. (Referenced throughout the report.) Survey of Criminal History Information Systems (the “BJS Survey”): A comprehensive NCIC 2000: An initiative undertaken by the FBI to 50-State survey describing the status of State criminal design, develop and implement a new generation history record systems as of December 1992. automated NCIC system for the compilation, Information includes the number of records, level of dissemination and exchange of timely criminal justice automation, record completeness, fingerprint information, including criminal history records, records procedures, firearm checking procedures, and of wanted and missing persons, and records of participation in III. The survey updates an earlier identifiable stolen property. Among other survey conducted in 1989. The survey was conducted improvements, the new system will have upgraded by SEARCH Group, Inc. under a grant from the Bureau hardware and telecommunications capabilities to of Justice Statistics. (See pages 24-29.) support the paperless exchange of information, including graphic information such as mug shots, tattoos and signatures of offenders. NCIC 2000 is scheduled to be fully implemented by the end of 1995. (See page 66.)

Glossary 4 ¥ Draft Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Introduction

Purpose of this report ¥ A description of the Interstate Background Identification Index system and This report is the first the role it plays in the Repositories of criminal comprehensive examination of the decentralization of the Nation’s history record information Nation’s criminal history record criminal history record systems and the major issues and information system; and This report discusses in detail the developments that affect them. ¥ An overview of Federal operations of the State and national initiatives and activities that repositories of criminal history It describes in nontechnical terms affect criminal history record records that provide information the complex and interrelated systems. about individuals’ past criminal network of Federal, State and local involvement to criminal justice information systems that provide It is hoped that readers will derive a practitioners and to noncriminal criminal history records to criminal general understanding of how justice agencies and organizations justice personnel and to authorized criminal history record systems that need such information to carry noncriminal justice users. work, the types of information they out their duties and functions. maintain, who reports the It also assesses the role these information to them and by what —State systems systems play in the effective means, how accurate and complete functioning of the criminal justice the information is, and who obtains Each State operates a central system, and reviews the impact that the information and for what criminal history record repository new technologies and strategies are purposes. that receives case processing having on the completeness, information contributed by law accuracy and availability of This report should also help readers enforcement agencies, prosecutors, criminal history records. to understand the changing courts and corrections agencies relationship among local, State and throughout the State. These This report includes: Federal systems and how presently repositories compile this ¥ An overview of how typical available and emerging technology information into comprehensive State criminal justice systems is affecting the efficiency of the criminal history records or “rap are structured, how the criminal systems and the quality of the sheets,” as they are often called. justice process works, and how information they maintain and Rap sheets are made available to criminal history records are used disseminate. criminal justice personnel, for in the justice system; authorized purposes, by means of statewide telecommunications An overview of existing State With this background, State and ¥ systems. and Federal criminal history Federal legislators and other record systems and of the policymakers, as well as the general Maintenance of such central product they provide — the public, should better understand the repositories relieves local and State criminal history record; critical role the criminal record repositories play and also how data criminal justice agencies of the An overview of laws regulating ¥ quality problems and other need to maintain expensive and criminal history record systems, problems — and the new strategies duplicative information systems and a look at two key issues and technologies being used to that attempt to compile affecting the systems — data solve them — affect the usefulness comprehensive offender records. quality and dissemination; of the systems and ultimately the They need only maintain systems ¥ A summary description of new efficiency of criminal case that support their own case technologies that affect criminal processing and the effectiveness of processing needs and can rely upon history record systems; crime control strategies. the State central repositories for information about the processing of cases in other agencies.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 1 The State repositories also make —Data quality Given the complexity of these criminal history records available to recent developments, it is hoped some noncriminal justice agencies, First, recent developments have that this report will guide and assist such as State agencies that are highlighted this fact: The legislators and other policymakers authorized by law to obtain the information maintained by the State in understanding these records for such purposes as and Federal repositories is not developments and the important employment screening and always accurate and up-to-date, due role the repositories play in national occupational licensing. primarily to the failure of criminal initiatives to improve data quality. justice agencies to report —Federal systems information accurately, completely —Decentralized and regularly, but due also in some recordkeeping At the Federal level, the Federal cases to a lack of adequate Bureau of Investigation (FBI) equipment and procedures at the Second, the State repositories and maintains criminal history record repositories. For example, the low the FBI are engaged in a files on Federal offenders, as well quality of the data stored in many cooperative program designed to as files on State offenders to the repositories has hampered ongoing eliminate the maintenance of extent that such information is efforts to establish a national duplicative State offender records voluntarily submitted by States. database of persons who have prior at both the State and Federal levels. The FBI has accepted and recorded felony convictions and are therefore State offender information for some prohibited by Federal law from The current practice of maintaining 70 years and has compiled a purchasing firearms. centralized State offender files at criminal history database that, to a the FBI will be replaced by a new great extent, duplicates the files of Surveys and audits have shown the system, the Interstate Identification the State repositories. following: Index, which will make the State ¥ That a high percentage of arrests repositories primarily responsible The FBI also maintains a on file in many repositories lack for providing State criminal history nationwide telecommunications dispositions; records for interstate and Federal- system that enables Federal, State State purposes. Full participation in That arrest and disposition and local criminal justice agencies ¥ this program will require most of information may be inaccurate; to conduct national record searches the States to modify their record and and to obtain information about dissemination laws and policies and individuals who are arrested and ¥ That the content and format of to upgrade the technical capabilities prosecuted in other States. the records made available by of their repositories in order to some of the repositories do not realize the long-term cost savings In addition, the FBI provides meet the needs of some users. inherent in the new approach. criminal record services to Federal and nonfederal noncriminal justice These developments have led to a —New technologies agencies that are authorized by number of initiatives to improve Federal law to obtain such records. criminal history record data quality Third, new technologies are nationwide, including Federal grant emerging that offer great potential Timely criminal history record assistance to the States and the for significantly increasing the information issues promulgation of voluntary data efficiency of the criminal history quality standards. Compliance with record repositories and the quality This report, which describes the these standards will require of the information they maintain State and Federal criminal history officials in many States to seek and disseminate. These record repositories and the funds from their State legislatures technologies are expensive, problems, issues and developments to provide additional equipment however, and it is often difficult to that affect them, should be timely and other resources to the persuade legislators and other for a number of reasons. repositories and to the criminal policymakers that investment in justice agencies that provide this new equipment makes sense in information to the repositories. times of tight State budgets.

Page 2 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Content of this report processing that are reflected, or Chapter IV provides a summary should be reflected, on criminal description of new technologies and This report contains six major history records. new technology applications that chapters that provide a affect the efficiency, and therefore comprehensive, nontechnical Chapter II provides an overview the cost, of criminal history record review of criminal history record of existing criminal history record information systems and the quality information systems nationwide, systems, with emphasis on the State of the records they provide. New and how the records contained in central repositories and the FBI’s technologies described include: those systems are used and criminal history record systems. ¥ Automated fingerprint managed. Supporting tables and The chapter includes a summary of identification technology and its information are presented in 21 the historical evolution of the State impact on the accuracy of the appendices. To find specific topics repositories and the FBI’s record identification function and the or areas of interest, readers are systems. It then describes the types efficiency of inquiry and encouraged to refer to the detailed and numbers of records maintained response procedures; table of contents. Readers are also by the repositories and the FBI, the Live-scan and card-scan encouraged to refer to a glossary extent of present and planned ¥ fingerprint technology and the which defines the terms used in this automation, the number of inquiries impact it will have on the report, and which is located handled, and major criminal justice efficiency and accuracy of arrest following the table of contents. and noncriminal justice users. The subject processing, inquiry chapter also describes how processing and the transmission Because the scope of this report is information is reported to the of fingerprint images to the broad, readers may wish to refer to repositories and the FBI and how repositories; and the other compendia, reports or users have access to the documents — cited throughout this information. Finally, the chapter ¥ Automated reporting of criminal report in footnotes — for more describes the quality of the history information to the specific or timely data. In addition, information maintained by the repositories by law enforcement readers may find a certain amount repositories, the format and content agencies, prosecutors, courts and of duplication between chapters; of the criminal history records they corrections agencies. this is because each chapter is disseminate, and the principal designed to stand alone as a systematic and procedural Chapter V describes the Interstate reference document. strategies utilized to ensure data Identification Index system, quality and system integrity. including an overview of the The chapters and the topics they system’s structure and the history cover are as follows: Chapter III analyzes the legal of phased testing and standards applicable to the criminal implementation up to the present. Chapter I provides a brief history record repositories, The chapter describes how the overview of how typical State including constitutional and processing of criminal justice and criminal justice systems are common law doctrines, as well as noncriminal justice inquiries structured, how the criminal justice statutory and regulatory presently works using FBI files and process works and how criminal requirements. This chapter also how such processing will work justice practitioners use criminal analyzes in some detail the laws, when the new system, including the history records. It describes the regulations and policies relevant to National Fingerprint File, is fully main case processing steps in a two major issues concerning implemented. The chapter also typical State’s criminal justice criminal justice information describes the principal burdens and system and identifies the decision management — data quality and benefits that participation in the points in these processes that dissemination. system will entail for the State require a reliance on criminal repositories and the FBI. Finally, history records, with a brief the chapter summarizes the explanation of the types of provisions of a proposed interstate information needed and the time compact designed to implement the frames within which it is needed. system and formalize participation The chapter also identifies the by the FBI and the State decisions and actions that occur in repositories. the course of criminal case

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 3 Chapter VI provides a brief overview of current Federal initiatives and activities that affect or are related to criminal history record systems. These include the following: ¥ The FBI’s program to upgrade its technology and streamline its procedures; ¥ The U.S. Attorney General’s program to establish a database of convicted felons to permit point-of-sale record checks for firearms sales; ¥ Federal grant programs to improve data quality; ¥ The voluntary reporting and data quality standards issued by the U.S. Department of Justice; and ¥ The pending Brady Bill, which, if passed, will provide additional funding for criminal history record data quality improvement.

Page 4 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Chapter I: How the criminal justice system works and how it uses criminal history records

Background This section discusses these This chapter provides an components of a State criminal overview of how the criminal This discussion is intended for justice system: justice system works and how those readers who may not be ¥ Criminal codes and procedures; criminal history records are familiar with the structure of the ¥ Police agencies; utilized by criminal justice criminal justice system and how ¥ Local detention facilities; personnel. persons accused of criminal offenses are processed through the ¥ Prosecution agencies; Section 1: Typical State system. This should enable these ¥ Courts; and criminal justice system readers to understand why criminal ¥ Corrections agencies. structure, describes a typical history record systems are State criminal justice system necessary and how the efficiency of structure, and includes a Criminal codes and these systems and the quality of the procedures discussion of criminal codes information they provide can and procedures, police significantly impact the Some crimes are Federal by nature, agencies, local detention effectiveness of criminal case facilities, prosecution agencies, such as attempts to assassinate the processing and the success of crime president, certain antitrust courts and corrections control strategies. agencies. violations and some criminal conspiracies or enterprises that Section 1: Typical State Section 2: Typical State utilize the mails or other criminal justice process, criminal justice system instruments of interstate commerce. describes how criminal cases structure These crimes are prosecuted in are processed in a typical State Federal courts and convicted criminal justice system — Although there are criminal justice offenders are usually, but not from investigation through systems at the local, State and always, incarcerated in Federal arrest, prosecution, Federal levels, most crimes by far correctional facilities. adjudication and correctional are prosecuted under State law. For supervision. this reason, this discussion will Other crimes or violations are local focus primarily on the state-level in nature, such as loitering or public Section 3: How criminal systems and will describe a more or drunkenness. These less serious justice practitioners use less typical State criminal justice offenses are processed through criminal history records, structure. It should be stressed, local systems at the city, township identifies the actions and however, that the systems at the or county level. decisions in the criminal three levels are significantly justice process that require a interrelated and depend upon a high Most crimes, however, are State reliance on criminal history level of cooperation among local, crimes, including the crimes of record information. This State and Federal officials. murder, robbery, burglary and rape, section also explains the types and other dangerous crimes that of information needed and the constitute the core of the Nation’s time frames within which it is serious crime problem. needed.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 5 Each of these governmental levels Local detention facilities Courts — local, State and Federal — defines its own criminal laws and Jails, which also are primarily local Courts exist at the local, State and criminal procedures. At the Federal in nature, detain not only persons Federal levels. Most States have level, the Congress1 has enacted a arrested for local offenses, but also “integrated” court systems, that is, Federal criminal code defining virtually all persons charged and systems which as a result of reform Federal crimes and a code of awaiting trial under State law. and modernization have a more or Federal setting Local jails may also house Federal less uniform statewide structure, out rules applicable in processing detainees and often house State combining local and State courts criminal cases through the Federal “prison-ready” inmates — persons into essentially one system. Some courts. State legislatures enact who have been convicted and States, such as and criminal statutes and procedural sentenced and are ready to move Maryland, have what are known as codes at the State level. City into a State prison but, because of “unified” court systems. In such councils or similar governing overcrowding or other reasons, systems, all courts are directly bodies act at the local level. cannot be moved. In most such administered by the State, usually cases, State or Federal governments through a state-level Office of Each of these levels depends upon a pay fees to the local communities Court Administration. high degree of cooperation with which house these prisoners. criminal justice officials at other In the typical State judicial system, governmental levels. This Prosecution agencies there are magistrates’ courts, lower- interrelation and cooperation is level trial courts, felony trial courts, especially important between local Prosecution is another essentially and intermediate and final appellate and State governments and exists at local function that plays a vital role courts. Magistrates, or every phase of the criminal justice in the enforcement of State criminal Commissioners in some States, process, from investigation through laws. Most prosecutors are elected conduct initial appearances in correctional treatment. Sometimes locally, at the city, county or criminal cases and may set bail, but these roles are defined by law, district level. They may be called usually have no trial jurisdiction. sometimes by formal agreements District Attorneys, as they are in Lower-level trial courts, often and sometimes by informal California and Wyoming, or State’s called Municipal Courts, County practice. Attorneys, as they are in Illinois Courts or District Courts, usually and South Dakota. They also may are limited to trying misdemeanor Police agencies be called Prosecuting Attorneys, cases and conducting probable Commonwealth’s Attorneys, cause hearings in felony cases. Police protection is primarily local County Attorneys or City in nature — a function of cities, Attorneys. The next tier is the felony trial municipalities or counties. Most court, commonly called the Circuit violations of State law are These locally-elected and locally- Court or Superior Court. In New investigated by local police and accountable officials are charged York, this court is called the suspects in these crimes are with the responsibility of Supreme Court. These are the basic arrested and charged at the local prosecuting not only local offenses State trial courts, with jurisdiction level. In addition, other police units but also virtually all offenses over felony offenses and often over — such as State troopers, Federal defined under State law. For many misdemeanor cases that are Drug Enforcement Administration of them, prosecuting State crimes is appealed from the lower trial officers or FBI agents — may be their primary function, sometimes courts. involved with local police in the their exclusive function. investigation, arrest and prosecution of certain cases.

1In this report, “the Congress” refers to the Congress.

Page 6 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report About half of the States have out some pitfalls in the process that consequently is more strictly intermediate appellate courts, may detract from the creation of regulated in many States. usually called the Court of Appeals. adequate records of criminal cases. Investigators do use criminal At the top of the structure, the State history record information, Supreme Court is the highest State The steps or functions discussed in however, as shown in Section 3 of appellate court. In New York, this this section are: this chapter. court is called the Court of ¥ Investigation; Appeals. Arrest ¥ Arrest; Generally, there is a right of appeal ¥ Booking; The next stage in the process, in to the State Supreme Court from ¥ Initial court appearance; most cases, is the arrest. An arrest the intermediate appellate court or ¥ Preliminary hearing; may occur pursuant to an arrest directly from the trial courts if no warrant, although generally an intermediate appellate court exists. ¥ Pretrial release decision; arrest warrant is not needed except Under some circumstances, such as ¥ Prosecutor review; for a misdemeanor offense alleged denials of constitutional ¥ Grand jury indictment; committed outside of the arresting rights, State court decisions can be ¥ Arraignment; officer’s presence or when the reviewed by Federal courts. officer must enter the subject’s ¥ Trial court action; premises to make the arrest. The Corrections agencies ¥ Appeal; more typical arrest is sometimes ¥ Sentencing; and referred to as an “on view” arrest. “Corrections” is generally an This occurs when the officer Correctional supervision. umbrella term for probation ¥ personally witnesses the crime or agencies, State prisons and parole (See Figure 1, which illustrates the has sufficient information from a agencies. Correctional supervision sequence of events in the criminal reliable source to establish probable is primarily a State function, justice system.) cause that a crime occurred and the although, again, cooperation among arrest subject was involved. governmental entities is common. It Investigation has already been noted that local In most instances, the arrest is the jails may hold State prisoners. Most criminal investigations are event that triggers the creation of a carried out by the police, but criminal history record for a In addition, State prisons may hold investigations may be undertaken particular case. Virtually all of the Federal prisoners, such as those by grand juries or other special States have laws or regulations who are in special protection bodies such as crime commissions requiring arresting agencies to programs, while Federal prisons or legislative committees. Most of report certain arrests to the central may hold State prisoners who are at the information utilized by criminal repository.2 (State central criminal particular risk in the State systems. investigators is commonly referred history record repositories are Sometimes a prisoner may serve to as “intelligence” information described in Chapter II.) These both State and Federal sentences or (information compiled in an effort laws usually apply to all arrests for State and local sentences to anticipate, prevent or monitor offenses classified as felonies or concurrently. possible criminal activity) or serious misdemeanors. “investigative” information (information obtained in the course Section 2: Typical State of the investigation of specific criminal justice process alleged criminal acts). Many State laws make a sharp Although there may be aspects of 2U.S. Department of Justice, Office distinction between this type of every State’s criminal justice of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice information and criminal history system that are unique, the essential Statistics, Data Quality of Criminal record information. Intelligence and steps or functions in the system are History Records, Criminal Justice investigative information is similar in practically all States. The Information Policy series, by Robert R. regarded as more sensitive and Belair, SEARCH Group, Inc. following discussion describes the potentially more harmful to privacy (Washington, D.C.: Government functioning of these essential steps and confidentiality interests and Printing Office, October 1985) p. 36. in a typical State system and points (Hereafter, Data Quality Report.)

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 7 Figure 1: Sequence of Events in the Criminal Justice System (Figure not available in electronic format)

Page 8 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Figure 1: Sequence of Events in the Criminal Justice System (Figure not available in electronic format)

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 9 In addition to reporting information If there are no procedures in place Booking about the arrest, the arrest subject to ensure that fingerprints are and arrest charges, arresting obtained at the time of the subject’s The booking process is a critical agencies are also required to obtain court appearance, or at some other stage in the information flow in a and submit the arrest subject’s point in the proceedings, the case criminal case. Booking typically fingerprints. These fingerprints history may lack a basis for positive involves an entry into a provide so-called “positive identification and any resulting chronological arrest log or arrest identification” of the record subject conviction may not be legally register, the filing of an arrest and are crucial for these reasons: admissible in subsequent report by the arresting officer, and ¥ Searching criminal history proceedings. Moreover, without the preparation of a statement of record systems; positive identification, case charges as the arresting officer sees information cannot reliably be them. Linking prior arrest and ¥ associated with information about conviction records to persons prior and subsequent offenses The booking process also includes who subsequently use false committed by the record subject, the taking and recording of names, and which is needed to form a personal information about the ¥ Ensuring the admissibility of comprehensive criminal history. arrestee, such as name, address, criminal records in subsequent date of birth, sex, race, eye and hair proceedings for such purposes as A similar problem is presented by color, weight and any scars, marks sentencing. cases in which additional charges or tattoos that may be useful in are filed against persons already identifying the person. For these reasons, it is vitally charged in other cases. For important that fingerprints be example, a person who is arrested, As noted earlier, if the arrest is for obtained and submitted to the charged and fingerprinted in a felony or a serious misdemeanor, repository for all cases that are connection with an alleged burglary the subject is fingerprinted. required by law to be included in may, through subsequent Typically, three sets of fingerprints the repository’s database. investigation, be linked to are made — one for the arresting additional burglaries, which may be agency’s files and two to be sent to In cases that begin by arrest, most charged as separate cases. New the State repository (one for the arresting agencies have booking fingerprints are often overlooked repository’s use and one to be procedures designed to ensure that for these new cases, even though forwarded to the FBI in appropriate fingerprints are obtained and the subject may still be in custody, cases). submitted as required. Not all cases and appropriate steps may not be begin by arrest, however. Citations, taken to establish a link between At some point in the booking used in the past mostly for minor the new cases and the earlier process, the agency makes inquiries offenses, are being used more and fingerprints. of available criminal history record more in many States for serious systems to determine whether the misdemeanors and even for some Where an arrest does occur, the subject has a record of prior or felonies. detained person may later be pending cases that may affect how released without being booked and he is processed. The agency checks Citations are paper forms that are charged. In such cases, no report to its own files and makes an inquiry given to the subject in lieu of arrest the repository is required and none of the State system and possibly the and booking, and which contain a should be made. (This assumes that Interstate Identification Index, a legally-enforceable order to appear no report on the arrest, that is, a national system that can determine in court on a specified date or as fingerprint card, has already been whether the subject has a Federal ordered. Since the subject is not submitted to the repository.) record or a record in another State. detained and booked, fingerprints (This national-level system, often are not obtained and submitted to referred to as “III” or “Triple I,” is the repository in the usual way. discussed in detail in Chapter V.)

Page 10 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report The booking stage is another point At the initial appearance, a number The court may take other actions at at which the arrestee may be of things can happen: this time as well. For example, if released without prosecution. If this ¥ The judge or magistrate may the prosecutor cannot present occurs, it may cause a problem for make a probable cause finding. enough evidence to meet the criminal history record reporting In felony cases, however, this is required findings, the judge will purposes. If the subject has been usually delayed until the next dismiss some or all of the charges. fingerprinted before release and the step in the process, the The judge may also make or change fingerprints have already been sent preliminary hearing, unless the a pretrial release decision, such as to the repository, notice of the two stages are combined, as they an increase or decrease in bail. release must also be sent to avoid are in some jurisdictions. the creation of an open arrest record Pretrial release decision Charges against the defendant without a notation that the case has ¥ may be dismissed at this point. been officially terminated. A recent As noted, the pretrial release survey of State repositories ¥ Legal counsel may be assigned decision may occur as early as the revealed that slightly more than if the defendant is indigent. initial appearance and may be half of the States have laws or ¥ A pretrial release decision may reviewed and changed, possibly regulations that require law be made. several times, at later stages of the enforcement agencies to send such proceedings in the case. 3 ¥ In nonserious cases, the entire notices to the repository, and case may be completed and a audits have shown that failure to disposition may be entered. Courts have a number of pretrial send such notices, even where release choices, based upon required by law, is a pervasive All of this information, with the available information about the problem. exception of the handling of the crime with which the defendant is nonserious case, typically is charged, his prior criminal record, Not all arresting agencies have reportable to the State repository and the likelihood that he will booking facilities. In such cases, and has consequences for the appear or fail to appear for trial: the arrestee is usually turned over completeness and accuracy of the ¥ The defendant may be jailed to another agency for processing. criminal history record. without bail if he is charged with This is commonly noted on the a capital offense or if the court subject’s record as “TOT,” Preliminary hearing finds that he may not appear for followed by the name of the trial or may pose an undue risk receiving agency. The next step is the preliminary to the community if released; hearing. Such a hearing may not be Initial court appearance ¥ He may be jailed in default of required in all jurisdictions, bond, if bail is set and he is particularly in cases in which a unable to post bond; The next step is the defendant’s grand jury must issue an initial appearance before a court or ¥ He may be released on cash indictment. Simply put, the purpose bond or without bond (released magistrate. This must occur of the preliminary hearing is to “without unnecessary delay,” which on his own recognizance or determine whether there is enough “ROR”); or in some States means within 24 evidence to hold (“bind over”) the hours. defendant for trial. To make this ¥ He may be released on specific determination, the judge or conditions or restrictions magistrate must be satisfied beyond designed to keep him out of a reasonable doubt that a crime was trouble and reduce the likelihood 3U.S. Department of Justice, Office committed and must find probable of flight. of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice cause that the defendant committed Statistics, Survey of Criminal History the crime. If the defendant is released and fails Information Systems, 1992, Criminal to appear for arraignment or trial, Justice Information Policy series, by an arrest warrant may be issued, Sheila J. Barton, SEARCH Group, Inc. and bond may be revoked or (Washington, D.C.: Government changed. Printing Office, forthcoming) Table 7. (Hereafter, 1992 Survey.) Selected tables from the 1992 Survey are set out in this report as Appendices 10-20.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 11 Prosecutor review jury finds that there is sufficient The defendant may enter a plea as a credible evidence to sustain the result of charge negotiations or Although the point at which the charges presented by the sentence negotiations with the prosecutor first becomes involved prosecutor, it issues a “true bill of prosecutor. The judge may reject a in the process varies from indictment.” guilty plea if he finds that the jurisdiction to jurisdiction, this defendant was coerced or does not involvement typically begins soon It is also possible in some cases for understand the charges or the after arrest. After reviewing the the grand jury to conduct consequences of his plea. If the circumstances of the offense, the investigations and initiate criminal judge accepts a guilty plea or a no arrestee’s prior record, if any, and proceedings on its own. It then contest plea, he normally enters a any other available information, the issues what is commonly called a judgment of conviction on the prosecutor may decide to file all of “grand jury original” indictment. If record and, if the charges are not the charges indicated by the the subject of the indictment is not serious ones, he may also impose arresting officer in the statement of already in custody, the appropriate sentence. In cases involving charges or he may decline to court may issue an arrest warrant. felonies or serious misdemeanors, prosecute some or all of the The court may also issue a sentencing is usually set for a later charges. He also may add or “summons” directing the person to date and the judge may order a modify charges. appear in court on a specified date. presentence report to guide the In such cases, care must be taken to sentencing decision. If he decides to go ahead with the ensure that the person’s fingerprints proceedings, the prosecutor may are obtained at the court appearance If the defendant pleads not guilty to initiate prosecution in some cases or the case record may lack positive some or all of the charges or if a by the filing of an “information” identification. guilty plea is rejected, the case is with the appropriate court.4 He also scheduled for trial on the remaining may present the charges to a grand Arraignment charges. jury and seek an “indictment.” Grand jury indictment is commonly After charges are formally filed by Trial court action required in felony cases unless indictment or information, the waived by the defendant. Once a accused person is scheduled for Trial usually results in an acquittal case is filed, it takes a court order arraignment before a court. At this or conviction on some or all of the based upon good cause shown to appearance, he is advised of the charges. Other common trial court drop any of the charges. charges against him and of his judgments can include, as to some rights under the law. For example, or all of the charges: dismissal, Grand jury indictment if he does not already have legal nolle prosequi (no further counsel, he is advised of his right to prosecution), not guilty by reason A grand jury is “grand” because it counsel, including the right to of insanity, and guilty but insane. typically is larger than the regular court-appointed counsel if he is trial jury, which usually includes 12 indigent. If he has counsel or There are still other trial outcome persons. Grand juries frequently waives legal representation, he is possibilities, however, that can consist of 23 jurors, although State asked to enter a plea. result in confusing criminal history laws may set other sizes. Grand records. One such possible outcome juries receive complaints and Plea options include guilty or not is “probation without verdict.” This accusations in criminal cases, hear guilty to some or all of the charges usually results from plea the evidence presented by the or nolo contendere (no contest) to negotiations and can occur before a prosecutor and decide whether some or all of the charges. The plea is entered or after the entry of there should be a trial. If a grand accused may also plead not guilty a guilty plea but before the entry of by reason of insanity or diminished a judgment of conviction. In such capacity, or guilty but insane. In cases, the defendant is placed on 4An “information” is a formal this regard, before the trial can probation with specified restrictions accusation against a person for the continue, the judge must determine or conditions for a specified period. commission of a crime. It differs from that the accused is competent to At the end of that time, the charges an indictment in that an information is understand the proceedings and to are dismissed if the defendant has presented by a public officer, usually assist his counsel in his defense. complied with the conditions. If the the prosecutor, upon his oath, rather defendant has not complied, trial than by the grand jury.

Page 12 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report may resume or the court may enter corpus, the function of which is to ¥ Confinement in a mental health a judgment of conviction on the obtain release from unlawful facility; or guilty plea and proceed to imprisonment. This and other post- Community service. sentencing. conviction actions can be based on ¥ claims of inadequate legal The judge may have discretion as to Another such outcome is indefinite representation or denial of certain sentence choices and sentence postponement. This also is usually constitutional rights, among other length, but State law may provide ordered pursuant to a plea grounds, and can result in review in for mandatory, determinate or negotiation and is undertaken to State and Federal appellate courts. enhanced sentencing in some cases, determine whether the defendant and may limit or deny probation can refrain from law enforcement Sentencing eligibility. Sentencing approaches contact for a specified period. If so, are discussed in Section 3 of this the case is dismissed. If not, trial is A sentence may be decided or chapter. resumed. recommended by the jury, as in capital cases, or imposed by the Correctional supervision Deferred judgments of this kind judge. Typically, a sentencing present recordkeeping problems hearing is held for felony cases. In The final step in the criminal justice because oftentimes no notice is sent all States, the sentencing judge has process is correctional supervision. to the State repository at the end of the discretion, by express statutory Basically, this step includes the so- the probationary period indicating authority or by virtue of inherent called “three Ps”: probation, prison whether the charges were dismissed judicial powers, to order the and parole. or reinstated. As a result, the preparation of a presentence report criminal history record maintained to guide the sentencing decision.5 Incarceration in a State prison is by the repository may be The presentence report almost usually for persons who are ambiguous as to whether the case always includes information about convicted of felonies and receive has been concluded and what the the defendant’s past criminal sentences of one year or more. final outcome was. activity. Sentences of less than a year usually are served in local jails or The conclusion of trial proceedings Sentencing options may include other local facilities. A person may is another point at which bail may (separately or in combination): receive a “split sentence”; that is, be reviewed and changed. After ¥ The death penalty; he may serve some time but also conviction, the risk of flight may be Incarceration in a prison, jail or receive a period of probation. If a thought to have increased and ¥ other facility; person is placed on probation in increased bail may be justified. Bail lieu of incarceration and fails to may also be denied pending ¥ Probation; comply with the terms of probation sentencing or appeal. A , in whole ¥ — including making monetary or in part; Appeal restitution, if so ordered — ¥ A fine; probation may be revoked and the person may be sent to jail or prison. An appeal may follow sentencing ¥ Restitution; The same applies to a person who or may be instituted before ¥ Forfeiture of the proceeds of the is paroled after serving part of a sentence is imposed. Some appeals crime; term of incarceration and fails to may be automatic, as in death comply with the conditions of penalty cases, and in other cases the 5U. S. Department of Justice, Office parole. convicted person may have a right of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice to appeal if he chooses. In other Statistics, Statutes Requiring the Use of cases, however, appeal may be in Criminal History Record Information, the discretion of the appellate court. Criminal Justice Information Policy series, by Paul L. Woodard, SEARCH There are also so-called “post- Group, Inc. (Washington, D.C.: conviction actions” that can result Government Printing Office, June in appellate review of some aspects 1991) Table 7 at pp. 47-50. (Hereafter, of criminal cases. The most Statutes Report.) Selected tables from common is the writ of habeas the Statutes Report are set out in this report as Appendices 1-7.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 13 Section 3: How criminal ¥ Prior offenders might not be able occurred, such as possession of a justice practitioners to legally purchase firearms, firearm or other dangerous weapon use criminal history which then enable them to by a felon. There are provisions in commit more crimes; the penal codes of the Federal records Government, 43 States, the District ¥ In many cases, prior offenders of Columbia and the U.S. Virgin This chapter has previously would not be eligible for Islands making it a criminal mentioned some of the uses that probation or other lenient offense, usually a felony, for a criminal justice practitioners make treatment; person previously convicted of a of criminal history records. This ¥ In some cases, prior offenders felony to own, possess or carry a section reviews in more detail the would be subject to upgraded or firearm or, in some States, certain uses, both mandatory and enhanced charging and other dangerous weapons.7 discretionary, that such sentencing and would receive practitioners make of criminal longer prison terms; and A suspect’s status as an escapee or history records as they perform ¥ In some cases, prior offenders his failure to comply with their duties in processing offenders might be subject to sentencing as conditions of his current status as a through the criminal justice system. career or habitual offenders to probationer, parolee or bailee can These uses include: long prison terms without also be determined from his ¥ Police uses; parole. criminal record, if it is complete ¥ Pretrial release uses; and current. ¥ Prosecutor uses; Thus, simply put, the availability or nonavailability of complete, Pretrial release uses ¥ Court uses; and accurate and timely criminal history ¥ Corrections uses. records can have a direct impact on The presence or absence of a prior the functioning of the criminal criminal record is arguably the This section also discusses the justice system. most relevant information to a types of criminal history record judge or magistrate deciding information needed to guide Police uses whether and under what conditions criminal justice decisionmaking, to release a person on bail pending and also discusses the time frames Police agencies use criminal history trial. Indeed, 47 States, the Federal within which the information is records in numerous ways, Government, the District of needed. including as an investigative tool. Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands Criminal records can aid them in and Puerto Rico have statutory or Background compiling suspect lists, based upon constitutional provisions or court prior criminal patterns, or in rules that explicitly require or The importance of the criminal eliminating suspects who can be permit the consideration of an history record to the effective determined to have been arrested person’s prior criminal functioning of the criminal justice incarcerated at the time of the record in making pretrial and post- system can hardly be overstated. crime. Information about a trial release decisions.8 Research has shown that as many suspect’s prior record can also be as two-thirds of all persons arrested helpful in obtaining a search In some cases, pretrial release is for criminal offenses have prior warrant or establishing criminal prohibited by law if persons criminal records, often including knowledge or motive. charged with designated offenses offenses in multiple jurisdictions or were already on bail when arrested States.6 Many arrestees, if The record can be extremely useful or if they have previous convictions identified as prior offenders, would to the in the field. for designated offenses. In addition, be treated differently than first When an officer makes a stop, laws in many States permit courts offenders. For example: information about the stopped Prior offenders might not be person’s dangerousness or past ¥ 7Ibid., Table 10 at pp. 64-66, and p. released on bail or on their own violent activity can save the officer’s life. In addition, 63. Table 10 is included in this report recognizance; as Appendix 1. information about a suspect’s 8 criminal record may be necessary Ibid., Table 2 at pp. 7-10, and pp. to determine whether a crime has 5-6. An excerpt from Table 2 is 6Ibid., p. 1. included in this report as Appendix 2.

Page 14 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report to order “preventive detention” of enhanced prison terms.9 Under —For bail, pretrial and trial persons with prior records that some of these laws, the prosecutor decisions indicate that they would be must allege habitual or repeat dangerous or might commit further offender status in the charging As noted above, courts need crimes if released. document or give early notice of his criminal history record information intent to seek an enhanced for bail and pretrial release Information that an arrested person sentence. decisions at an early stage in has previously failed to appear as criminal proceedings, many times ordered (usually noted on criminal In addition, almost all of the States within 24 hours of the defendant’s history records as “FTA”) is also have provisions applicable to arrest. They also use criminal important at the bail-setting stage. certain crimes that upgrade second history record information in Virtually all States permit such and subsequent offenses, of the making probable cause information to influence pretrial same or similar type, to higher determinations, issuing arrest release decisions, including the classes of crimes than first offenses warrants, and accepting or rejecting denial of bail if the subject is — from a misdemeanor to a felony, pleas. deemed likely to flee based on prior for example, or to a more serious FTAs and the seriousness of the class of felony or misdemeanor.10 In some instances, courts are current crime. In some of these cases, the authorized to consider evidence of upgraded offense must be specified prior crimes by a defendant during Prosecutor uses in the charging document. This the trial itself. Such evidence may means that the prosecutor must be admissible, for example, to show Prosecutors are among the heaviest have complete information about a motive, intent, criminal knowledge, users of criminal history records. defendant’s prior record at the time common plan or scheme, or method They use such records from the the case is filed in court because the of operation (modus operandi or moment they become involved in class of offense charged can affect “M.O.”) Certain prior convictions criminal cases until the cases are the type of charging document that also may be admissible to attack the terminated at the defendants’ parole must be used or the court in which credibility of the defendant, if he hearings or earlier. Complete and the case must be filed. testifies, or of other witnesses. accurate criminal history record information is needed by Court uses —For sentencing decisions prosecutors to provide input and make decisions regarding: Courts are also heavy users of The most frequent use of criminal ¥ Bail; criminal history record information, history records by courts, however, although in some cases judges may is in connection with sentencing. Enhanced charging; ¥ not be aware that the information As mentioned, many State laws ¥ Plea bargaining; comes primarily from repository- permit or require courts to upgrade ¥ Presentations to grand juries; supplied criminal history records, charges or impose enhanced ¥ Habitual or career criminal since they customarily receive the sentences for persons with prior prosecutions; information in modified form — in conviction records, including, in bail reports prepared by bail some cases, life sentences without ¥ Impeachment of witnesses; agencies or other agencies, in parole for certain habitual ¥ Sentence recommendations; and presentence reports prepared by offenders. ¥ Parole board hearings. probation departments or in presentations by the prosecutor. All of the States have statutory provisions that authorize or require arrested persons with designated prior convictions to be charged as repeat offenders, habitual offenders 9 or career offenders, and, if Ibid., Table 5 at pp. 36-41, and pp. convicted, to be sentenced to 13-14. An excerpt from Table 5 is included in this report as Appendix 3. 10Ibid., Table 3 at pp. 17-23, and p. 11. An excerpt from Table 3 is included in this report as Appendix 4.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 15 Some of these enhancement laws previously been convicted of Types of information needed take into consideration not only certain serious offenses, such as past convictions but also the murder or other offenses involving It should be obvious that criminal number and duration of prison violence.14 justice practitioners use criminal terms previously served and the history records to guide decision- length of time between release and Corrections uses making at every stage of the renewed criminal involvement.11 In criminal justice process. It should addition, virtually all of these laws The most frequent use of criminal also be obvious that the information take into account convictions in any history record information by they need for these purposes State or Federal court and, in some correctional agencies is in the includes more than just a list of cases, in territorial or foreign courts preparation of presentence reports, arrest charges and court as well.12 which commonly are prepared by dispositions. Proper enforcement of parole or probation agencies. the laws and effective In lieu of, or in addition to, specific Correctional officials also use such implementation of crime control upgrade or enhancement laws, information for classification strategies may require them to some jurisdictions have established purposes,15 however, and in know not only the number, nature sentencing guidelines or making decisions about eligibility and dates of prior convictions, but presumptive or determinate for good time credits, early release, also: sentencing structures that are based work furlough or release on Whether an offender was on bail 16 ¥ in part on prior convictions as parole. or some other form of aggravating factors or on sentence supervision at the time of arrest; computation formulas that include As noted earlier, numerous States Whether an offender has a prior convictions as factors in the have reformed their sentencing ¥ history of violation of release computation.13 structures in recent years to provide conditions or failure to appear as for determinate sentencing pursuant ordered; —For probation and parole to sentencing guidelines or decisions mandatory sentencing structures. ¥ Whether other cases are pending Under some of these laws, against the offender and the Courts also take criminal history offenders are required to serve the status of such cases; record information into account in sentences imposed, less good time ¥ Whether particular past crimes deciding whether to place offenders credits only, with release on parole involved the use of dangerous on probation or to impose limits on prior to sentence expiration no weapons or actual or threatened parole eligibility for incarcerated longer permitted. violence; offenders. In some jurisdictions, ¥ Whether prior convictions were these decisions are left to the Other State laws deny or limit for felonies or misdemeanors; discretion of the courts. In other parole eligibility for certain instances, the limitations are offenders based on the number and ¥ Whether an offender has served mandatory. For example, many of seriousness of prior convictions. previous terms of imprisonment; the repeat offender, habitual Even where parole eligibility is not and offender and sentence enhancement specifically constrained by statute, ¥ Whether new and prior incidents laws mentioned earlier provide for parole decisions commonly are of criminal involvement were mandatory prison terms, based in large part upon the separated by specified periods foreclosing probation as a possible seriousness of the offender’s during which the individual was sentence, and many of them deny present offense and his past free of criminal involvement. or limit parole eligibility. Probation criminal record. may also be prohibited by law for certain convicted persons who have

14Ibid., p. 14. 15Ibid., Table 8 at pp. 52-54, and p. 11 Ibid., Table 4 at pp. 24-35, and p. 51. Table 8 is included in this report as 14. An excerpt from Table 4 is included Appendix 6. in this report as Appendix 5. 16Ibid., Table 9 at pp. 57-61, and 12 Ibid., p. 14. pp. 55-56. An excerpt from Table 9 is 13Ibid., pp. 12-13. included in this report as Appendix 7.

Page 16 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report In addition, court officials often Few States presently have Other needs are not as time-critical. express a need for information procedures and facilities for making For example, agencies ordered to about previous failures to pay fines fingerprint-verified criminal history prepare presentence reports or restitution and information about record responses available within generally have time for less serious offenses that in many such short time frames. Some investigation and compilation of States are not required to be jurisdictions have bail agencies or needed information. There is often reported to the repository,17 usually other agencies that are charged with time to obtain a fingerprint-based because there is no legal the responsibility of obtaining and search of the State’s criminal requirement to obtain fingerprints providing information for use in record system, thus avoiding the in such cases. bail determinations. In some cases, risk of missing previous record these agencies may have the staff information if the subject gave a Finally, it should be re-emphasized and facilities for making inquiries fictitious name when arrested. that virtually all of the laws that to obtain complete and accurate There may also be sufficient time to require or permit criminal justice information concerning prior receive a response from the III decisions to be based upon past criminal records. In most cases, system indicating whether the criminal involvement take into however, the only information subject has a record in another account prior convictions in any available in time for initial bail jurisdiction. Finally, there may be State or Federal court and determinations is a criminal history sufficient time to contact courts and sometimes in territorial or foreign record transcript received in correctional agencies, if necessary, courts as well. response to a name search of the to obtain missing disposition State’s criminal history system and information or to verify the Time frames within which whatever information is provided accuracy of recorded arrest and information is needed by the police or is known to the disposition information. prosecutor or the court. The time frame within which criminal history record information Since name searches are not fully is needed by criminal justice reliable and existing criminal practitioners varies considerably. record files may be inaccurate and As mentioned earlier, information incomplete, particularly with for bail-setting purposes may be respect to case disposition needed within 24 hours of arrest. information, some short-term needs Some of the investigative needs of of criminal justice officials are not law enforcement officers may also currently being met. In some necessitate short response times. jurisdictions, however, new Prosecutors need criminal history technology is solving some of these record information at an early stage problems. (This is discussed in of criminal proceedings for Chapter IV.) charging purposes and making bail recommendations.

17U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Report of the National Task Force on Criminal History Record Disposition Reporting, Criminal Justice Information Policy series, by SEARCH Group, Inc. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, June 1992) p. 3. (Hereafter, National Task Force Report.)

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 17 Page 18 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Chapter II: Overview of existing criminal history record systems

Background This chapter describes the Nation’s existing criminal history record systems at both the State and Federal levels. State-level systems

Section 1: Evolution of criminal history record systems, provides a Criminal history records at the brief historical review of the evolution of criminal history record State level are collected, maintained systems at the State and Federal levels. and disseminated by “State central repositories,” which are agencies or Section 2: Information maintained in the Nation’s criminal history bureaus within State governments, record systems, summarizes the type of information maintained in often housed within the State police State and Federal criminal history record repositories, including or a cabinet-level agency with identification, criminal history and juvenile information. public safety and criminal justice responsibilities, such as the Section 3: The current status of the Nation’s criminal history Department of Law Enforcement or record systems, summarizes a recent Bureau of Justice Statistics the Department of Public Safety. survey of State criminal history record systems and describes: ¥ The number of criminal history records maintained by State and Customarily, the repositories are Federal repositories; charged under State law with the ¥ The extent of repository automation; and following: ¥ The reporting and access procedures utilized by the repositories. ¥ Establishing comprehensive files of criminal history records; Section 4: The product of the repositories: The criminal history ¥ Establishing an efficient and record, discusses the quality of information maintained by the timely system for retrieving the repositories, and the adequacy of the content and format of the records; criminal history records they produce. ¥ Ensuring that the records are accurate and up-to-date; and ¥ Establishing rules and regula- tions governing the dissemina- tion of criminal history records to criminal justice and non- criminal justice users. Today, all 50 States, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia have established central repositories for criminal history records.18

18U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal History Record Information: Compendium of State Privacy and Security Legislation, 1992, by SEARCH Group, Inc. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, July 1992) p. 5. (Hereafter, 1992 Compendium.)

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 19 Federal-level systems This section reviews the historical Early identification and evolution of criminal history record recordkeeping systems At the Federal level, the Federal systems, and includes discussions Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of the following: This is not to say, however, that functions as a repository for ¥ Establishment of early police 19th century police forces were criminal history information, departments; keeping criminal history record holding both Federal offender information. Rather, throughout the Early identification and information and records of arrests ¥ 19th century, most urban American recordkeeping systems; and and dispositions under State law. police departments, if they kept As discussed in this chapter, the ¥ Efforts to establish State and records at all, kept what can be FBI’s criminal history record Federal criminal history record called the precursor of the criminal information role is changing. systems. history record — the so-called “police blotter.” The blotter was, Currently, the FBI operates a Establishment of early and is, a purely chronological centralized criminal history file that police departments listing of events occurring each day serves as the primary source for in a particular police department or, national record searches and At the beginning of this century more often, a particular precinct or interstate record exchanges. By the there was hardly such a thing as a subdivision of a police department. end of this century, however, the criminal history record, much less a Customarily, the blotter contains FBI will serve primarily as the criminal history record system. the name, age, sex and race of “51st State repository” with respect Indeed, prior to 1835 not a single persons arrested, along with to Federal offenders. The FBI will American city enjoyed even an citations to alleged offenses.20 also maintain these systems: organized police force, much less ¥ The Interstate Identification an organized police record system. It was not until the emergence of a Index, which will permit In 1835, Boston became the first reliable system for identifying authorized requestors to city to establish a full-time police individuals, and thus “positively” determine whether any State or force. In 1844, New York followed linking records to individuals, that Federal repository maintains a suit. law enforcement agencies began to criminal history record about a keep records that were “about particular subject; and Meanwhile, in less populated areas individuals,” as opposed to being of the country, State governments “about events.” As early as the The National Fingerprint File, ¥ took on the role of establishing post-Civil War period, the famed which will provide positive organized police forces. Texas, for detective, Allan Pinkerton, identification of all offenders instance, established the Texas launched his own crude criminal indexed in the national system. Rangers in 1853. Shortly thereafter, history record system with respect (These national systems are Arizona established its own State discussed in detail in Chapter police force. By the end of the 19th V.) century, every major urban area and all regional and State areas had established law enforcement Section 1: Evolution of agencies.19 criminal history record Company, 1980) at Chapter 3. systems (Hereafter, Gilbert.) 19U.S. Department of Justice, 20U.S. Department of Justice, Although the Nation’s criminal Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of history record system is far from Justice Statistics, Intelligence and Justice Statistics, Original Records of complete, vast strides have been Investigative Records, Criminal Justice Entry , Criminal Justice Information made, both in terms of the extent to Information Policy series, by Robert R. Policy series, by Robert R. Belair, which the system is organized in an Belair, SEARCH Group, Inc. SEARCH Group, Inc. (Washington, effective and coordinated manner, (Washington, D.C.: Government D.C.: Government Printing Office, and in terms of the quality of the Printing Office, February 1985) p. 14. November 1990) pp. 6-7. See also, system’s product. It was not always (Hereafter, Intelligence and Michael J. Petrick, “The Press, the so. Investigative Records.) See also, James Police Blotter and Public Policy,” N. Gilbert, Criminal Investigation Journalism Quarterly 46 (Autumn (Columbus, Ohio: Charles Merrill and 1969) p. 475, n.1.

Page 20 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report to persistent criminals. Pinkerton for many other justice and In 1967, the President’s called for the establishment of a government purposes.25 Commission on Law Enforcement national system to collect and and Administration of Justice maintain records, including Efforts to establish criminal published a comprehensive critique photographs, of active criminals.21 history record systems of the criminal justice system. It concluded that crime in the United The first systematic attempts at In 1924, fingerprinting and related States was a massive problem and developing criminal identification recordkeeping received an that the Nation’s criminal justice systems included name-based important impetus when the U.S. system was too antiquated to mount registers of habitual criminals in Congress directed the FBI to create an effective response.28 The report combination with photographs and an “identification division” to called for, among other things, a an anthropometric system for acquire, maintain and use significant Federal effort to taking exact measurements of fingerprint information for criminal establish and automate a national physical features, which was identification and certain other criminal history record system. developed in the mid-19th century purposes.26 The Identification by a Frenchman, Alfonse Bertillon. Division started with just over —LEAA efforts to establish In 1896, the International 800,000 fingerprints, which State systems Association of Chiefs of Police represented contributions from the established the first “national” files of the International In 1969, the Law Enforcement criminal identification system in Association of Chiefs of Police, the Assistance Administration (LEAA), Chicago.22 Federal penitentiary at which was established in response Leavenworth, Kansas, and the to the Commission’s At about the same time, the “Henry Justice Department’s own recommendations, initiated Project Classification System” emerged as Identification Bureau records.27 SEARCH, a consortium of the the first effective method for the States to develop and demonstrate a use of fingerprints to positively Notwithstanding this significant computerized system for the identify previous offenders and to progress, the Wickersham Report interstate exchange of criminal search identification files.23 In — the product of a congressionally history record information. At 1908, the U.S. Department of chartered comprehensive about the same time, the U.S. Justice formed the Identification examination of the criminal justice Attorney General authorized the Bureau (the forerunner of the system undertaken in the 1930s — FBI to manage the interstate Federal Bureau of Investigation), concluded that vast improvements exchange aspects of any operational with the mission, among others, of were needed in the Nation’s system resulting from this establishing a fingerprint-based criminal justice record system. successful demonstration.29 criminal history record information Serious work on those system.24 By 1911, fingerprinting improvements, however, had to was a commonplace and important wait almost 40 years. part of the American criminal justice system. Fingerprints were being used by the police, in the courts, by corrections agencies and

28President’s Commission on Law 21 Enforcement and Administration of Intelligence and Investigative Justice, The Challenge of Crime in a Records, p. 18. See also, Gilbert, p. 17. Free Society (Washington, D.C.: 22 Gilbert, p. 17. Government Printing Office, February 23Clarence G. Collins, Fingerprint 1967). 25 Science: How to Roll, Classify, File and F.A. Reed, “The Finger Mark, the 29SEARCH Group, Inc., Technical Use Fingerprints (Placerville, Prime Piece of Scientific Evidence,” Report No. 14: The American Criminal California: Copperhouse (formerly Journal of Forensic Science (January History Record: Present Status and Custom) Publishing Company, 1985) p. 1981) p. 9. Future Requirements (Sacramento, 26 1. (Hereafter, Collins.) Collins, p. 2. California: SEARCH Group, Inc., 24Ibid. 27Ibid. September 1976) p. 6.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 21 In 1972, LEAA launched a vehicles, stolen license plates, Section 2: Information Comprehensive Data Systems stolen guns, stolen boats, stolen maintained in the program (CDS) designed to securities, stolen articles of Nation’s criminal history encourage each State to develop a personal property and certain other criminal justice information system types of files.31 NCIC maintains its record systems to meet its own needs. By 1976, 26 own nationwide States were participating in the telecommunications system and This section details the types of Computerized Criminal History operates as a cooperative Federal- information maintained in State and (CCH) component of the CDS State venture with policy input Federal criminal history record program and these States and others provided through its state-based systems, including: had established central State Advisory Policy Board. ¥ Subject identification repositories charged with information; maintaining statewide criminal In 1971, NCIC implemented an ¥ Criminal history information; history record systems.30 interstate computerized criminal Juvenile record information; history record system — the CCH ¥ —FBI efforts to establish System — containing records of ¥ Other information (such as Federal systems individuals arrested for both pretrial release information and Federal and State felonies and felony conviction flags); and As noted earlier, the FBI has serious misdemeanors. By the mid- ¥ Master name indexes. collected and maintained criminal 1970s, NCIC/CCH held several history records since the early part million automated criminal history Background of the century. From its inception in records. However, concerns about the mid-1920s through the mid- the practicality, cost and wisdom of The heart of the mission of the 1960s, the FBI’s criminal history establishing a national centralized State and Federal repositories is to recordkeeping operation, centered criminal history record system led maintain comprehensive criminal in the Identification Division, the FBI to phase out the CCH history records or “rap sheets.” maintained manual criminal history program in the early 1980s in favor Criminal history records records. The records could be of a decentralized national criminal maintained by the State and FBI retrieved by name and other history record system — the repositories contain: biographic identifiers, as well as by Interstate Identification Index. (See ¥ Information identifying the an FBI number. In addition, the Chapter V.) subject of the record; and records were “fingerprint- supported,” which meant that a ¥ Information about the record fingerprint card was maintained as subject’s current and past a part of each criminal history involvement with the criminal record to provide positive justice system (including arrests identification of the offender. or other formal criminal charges, and any dispositions resulting from these arrests or formal In 1967, the FBI established the 32 National Crime Information Center charges). (NCIC) to provide a nationwide, user-oriented computer response for criminal justice records. NCIC 31 maintains the so-called “hot files” U.S. Department of Justice, containing information about Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice 32The term “criminal history record wanted and missing persons, stolen “Hot” Files, Criminal Justice information” is defined by Federal Information Policy series, by Paul L. regulations to mean “information Woodard, SEARCH Group, Inc. collected by criminal justice agencies (Washington, D.C.: Government on individuals consisting of identifiable Printing Office, November 1986) pp. descriptions and notations of arrests, 11-14. Information on the NCIC “hot detentions, indictments, information, or files” was obtained from the NCIC other formal criminal charges, and any Operating Manual and other documents disposition arising therefrom, published by the FBI, and from NCIC sentencing, correctional supervision, 30Ibid. officials and staff. and release.” 28 C.F.R. § 20.

Page 22 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report The repositories often limit their information. As of 1989, 38 States General adopted a rule authorizing collection of criminal history reported that 100 percent of their the FBI to accept state-reported information to felonies or serious criminal history files were records of serious offenses by misdemeanors. fingerprint-supported.34 By 1992, juveniles.37 In December 1992, the that number had grown to 41 FBI announced that juvenile record Other types of criminal justice States, the District of Columbia and information received pursuant to information are not included in the Virgin Islands. In 1992 alone, the new rule would be disseminated criminal history files. For example, over 6.2 million fingerprint cards under the same standards that apply “investigative information,” were submitted to the State central to the dissemination of adult “intelligence information” and repositories.35 criminal history records.38 records relating to traffic offenses and certain other petty offenses are Criminal history information The Justice Department has noted specifically exempted from the that the juvenile record program is definition of “criminal history Criminal history information necessary to respond to a marked records” in Federal regulations includes information about any rise in juvenile crime. Crimes by governing federally-funded record arrests, along with available juveniles amount to between 10 and systems and are seldom maintained disposition data. Disposition data 40 percent of all serious crimes, in State repositories.33 With few most commonly include depending upon the category. The exceptions, State criminal history information about “final” Justice Department intends to use record repositories also do not dispositions — decisions or actions the new juvenile justice reporting accept or maintain records of that terminate cases, including standards to facilitate an early juvenile offenses, except, of course, police decisions to drop all charges, identification of repeat and chronic in those cases where the juveniles prosecutor decisions to not offenders. are tried as adults. prosecute the cases and court dispositions. Where court action Other information Identification information results in a conviction, the criminal history record should show the Practices vary as to additional —Personal description sentence imposed and information information that may be contained about correctional reception and in a criminal history record. Identification information usually release. includes the subject’s name, —Interim dispositions address, date of birth, social Juvenile record information security number, sex, race, and Some repositories include physical characteristics such as hair Until recently, the FBI, like most of information about pretrial release or and eye color, height, weight, and the State repositories, did not confinement and “nonfinal” or any distinguishing scars, marks or maintain juvenile record “interim” dispositions such as tattoos. Identification information information, except with respect to prosecutor decisions to file, modify may also include the subject’s place juveniles tried as adults.36 On July or drop charges referred by the of employment, automobile 15, 1992, however, the Attorney police. registration and other pertinent information.

—Fingerprints

Most importantly, personal 341992 Survey, Table 6. Table 6 is information also includes a included in this report as Appendix 14. biometric identifier — fingerprint 35Ibid. 36Testimony of Lawrence K. York, Assistant Director, Identification Division, Federal Bureau of 37 Investigation, before the Subcommittee U.S. Department of Justice, on Civil and Constitutional Rights, “Juvenile Records,” Federal Register Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. 56 (June 5, 1991) p. 25642. House of Representatives, March 20, 38Amending 28 C.F.R. ¤ 331992 Compendium, note 7 at p. 4. 1992. (Hereafter, York Testimony.) 20.32(a)(b).

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 23 —Felony flags maintain “master name indexes.” criminal history record The master name index is a key systems Thirty States, the District of element of the criminal history Columbia and Puerto Rico system and, potentially, of a point- Background currently “flag” some or all felony of-sale firearm check system, since convictions in their criminal history it permits the user to identify a The Bureau of Justice Statistics has databases, and an additional 14 felony flag on a record of a named just completed a survey that States collect sufficient data to flag offender. 39 assesses the quality of the criminal at least some felonies. Such history record information information can be essential for —Contents, usage maintained by State repositories, as users of criminal history records. well as the policies of the States in For example, since the Federal The master name index is simply an such areas as criminal history file government and most State index of names and identifiers for automation, felony flagging governments prohibit the purchase every offender for which the procedures, and data quality audit or possession of firearms by repository has a partial or complete activity.43 The survey covered the convicted felons, systems that flag criminal history file. The master status of all State record systems felony convictions can help to name index may be made up of the through 1992. Information in this quickly identify individuals who identification segments of the section that describes the status of are barred from buying or carrying criminal history file, or it may be a State criminal history record firearms. separate file. systems is drawn from this 1992 survey. Data on Federal record —Misdemeanor data In either case, if a criminal justice systems is drawn from other agency queries a repository’s sources. While some State repositories master name index and a “hit” is collect comprehensive arrest and made, the inquiring agency usually This section looks at the following: disposition information about must then re-query the repository misdemeanor offenses, most for the complete criminal history ¥ The number of records in State repositories collect information record file. That query may be and Federal criminal history only about the most serious classes serviced instantaneously if both the record systems; of misdemeanor offenses.40 This master name index and criminal ¥ The extent of automation in lack of comprehensive history record file are automated. If State criminal history files, State misdemeanor arrest and disposition the repository maintains only a criminal fingerprint files, and data has been identified as one of hard-copy of the desired file, the Federal files; the major deficiencies in State query is processed manually. ¥ Reporting of information to the criminal history record systems repositories, including the type from the viewpoint of judicial — Number of records indexed of information reported, users.41 reporting requirements, and the The FBI maintains an automated time frame for reporting; Master name indexes master name index with about 12.5 ¥ Access methods for authorized million entries and each month it requestors; and In addition to criminal history adds over 70,000 new entries. All record files, State central except a few of the State ¥ Response times. repositories and the FBI also repositories have also automated their master name indexes. All but 11 States have 100 percent of their records in an automated master name index.42 391992 Survey, Table 1. Table 1 is included in this report as Appendix 10. 40National Task Force Report, p. 3. Section 3: The current 41 For example, complete status of the Nation’s misdemeanor information sometimes is helpful in assisting courts in distinguishing chronic offenders from 421992 Survey, Table 1. See, first or infrequent offenders. See, Ibid. Appendix 10. 43See, 1992 Survey.

Page 24 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Number of records to Federal offenders, as well as records of State offenders The State repositories have been The number of criminal history voluntarily reported to the FBI by making rapid progress in the last records maintained by the State State agencies. The Identification decade in automating their criminal central repositories and the FBI is Division’s criminal history record history files. In the three-year enormous — and continues to system includes information about period 1989-1992, the percent of grow. arrests for felonies and “serious or State criminal history records that significant” misdemeanors. are automated increased in some —State records Records are not maintained with States by as much as 700 percent respect to arrests for drunk driving, and in other States by well over 100 According to the 1992 survey, vagrancy, disturbing the peace and percent.47 By 1992, 25 States and which was conducted by SEARCH most types of traffic offenses. Puerto Rico reported that over 75 for the Bureau of Justice Statistics, percent of their criminal history more than 47.3 million individual Extent of automation records were automated.48 offenders were in the criminal history files of the State central There is enormous variation in the On the other hand, by 1992 there repositories as of December 31, extent to which State central were still 12 jurisdictions that had 1992.44 In comparison, eight years repositories have automated their automated less than 50 percent of earlier, the repositories held only criminal history records. their files, five of which had no 30.3 million subjects in their Automation is universally automated criminal history records criminal history files, and three considered to be a critical (as opposed to entries in the master years earlier in 1989, the number component of a successful criminal name index).49 was 42.4 million — an increase of history record system. Automation: 45 56 percent from 1984 to 1992. ¥ Reduces the cost of maintaining Twenty-nine States indicated that Similarly, more than 4.7 million a criminal record system; they are steadily automating their dispositions were reported in 1992 manual criminal history records Improves the system’s ability to to 33 State repositories providing ¥ each time an offender with a prior record dispositions and disposition data for the 1992 manual record is arrested.50 otherwise amend and update survey, compared with 3.5 million Overall, about 36.4 million of the files; dispositions reported by the 34 estimated 47.3 million criminal States that provided data to a ¥ Speeds retrieval times; history records maintained by the similar survey in 1989. ¥ Vastly improves a system’s State repositories nationwide are ability to be audited; automated.51 —Federal records ¥ Improves security by making it more difficult for information to —State criminal At the Federal level, the FBI’s be improperly accessed or fingerprint files Identification Division maintains modified; and fingerprint-based criminal history In addition, the States have made record information with respect to ¥ Improves a system’s ability to an enormous investment in and about 25 million individuals.46 monitor problems by facilitating commitment to the automation of These files include records relating the use of delinquent disposition criminal fingerprint files. As of monitoring systems and other 1990, for example, more than half 44 types of reporting and audit of the States were operating 1992 Survey, Table 2. Table 2 is protocols. included in this report as Appendix 11. statewide criminal justice 45 automated fingerprint identification Ibid., Table 3. Table 3 is included Simply stated, automation makes in this report as Appendix 12. systems (AFIS), and by the end of 46 recordkeeping easier, less U.S. Department of Justice, Task expensive, more reliable and 47 Force on Felon Identification in overall far more effective. And, of 1992 Survey, Table 2 . See, Firearm Sales, Report to the Attorney course, automation makes it Appendix 11. General on Systems for Identifying 48 possible for a system to interface Ibid. Felons Who Attempt to Purchase 49 Firearms (Washington, D.C.: with the national criminal history Ibid. 50 Government Printing Office, October record system. Ibid, Table 4. Table 4 is included 1989) p. 90. (Hereafter, Firearms —State criminal history files in this report as Appendix 13. Report.) 51Ibid., Table 3. See, Appendix 12.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 25 the century every State is expected Reporting of information to —Types of information to operate or have access to such a the repositories reported system.52 Criminal history record information The types of criminal history As described in more detail in is reported to the State repositories information reported to the Chapter IV, an AFIS is a computer- and to the FBI by criminal justice repositories vary according to: (1) based identification system which agencies at every level of what type of agency is sending the matches the fingerprints of search government — Federal, State and information (that is, police subjects with fingerprints held in an local — and at each stage of the department, district attorney, automated database. Fingerprint criminal justice system — by police corrections agency); and (2) State impressions are scanned into the departments, prosecutors, courts or Federal statutes, regulations and computer system and converted to a and corrections agencies. policies imposing reporting digital format which can be requirements. matched against digital codes For example, when a local police assigned to other fingerprints that agency in California arrests an Customarily, the first agency to have been similarly scanned. The individual, the agency transmits make an entry about an individual States are also actively fingerprints and information about is a police department or other law implementing live-scan and card- the arrestee to the State central enforcement agency that arrests the scan fingerprinting and other repository operated by the individual. The arresting agency “paperless” technologies, which California Department of Justice. usually provides the following also are described in more detail in As the individual proceeds through information to the State central Chapter IV. the criminal justice process, the repository: prosecutor’s office, courts and ¥ Name (and any known aliases); —Federal files corrections agencies provide Sex, race, date of birth and disposition data about the ¥ social security number; At the Federal level, about half of individual to the repository. the 25 million criminal history ¥ Address (both home and records maintained by the FBI are In some cases, the reporting agency business); fully automated and another 8.8 transmits the arrest or disposition ¥ Auto registration or driver’s million records of individuals born information via a computer license information; and after 1929 and arrested prior to July terminal that links the agency with ¥ Any pertinent physical 1, 1974, are in the process of being the State and FBI repositories or characteristics (weight, height, automated. Approximately 3.6 provides the information on eye color, hair color, tattoos or million records of offenders born computer-readable tape. In most other distinctive physical before 1929 are maintained in cases, however, the information is characteristics). manual form and there are no plans mailed by the reporting agency to 53 to automate them. the repository on forms provided by The agency also reports the charges the repository. (See Figure 2, which for which the individual was shows the flow of information to arrested. In most cases, the state central criminal record arresting agency also must submit a repositories.) full set of fingerprints to the State central repository for all felony arrests and most States also require the forwarding of fingerprints for at least some misdemeanor arrests.54 52U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Legal and Policy Issues Relating to Biometric Identification Technologies, by Robert 541992 Survey, Table 6. Only three R. Belair, SEARCH Group, Inc. jurisdictions — Alaska, Vermont and (Washington, D.C.: Government Puerto Rico — do not require arresting Printing Office, April 1990) Appendix I agencies to submit fingerprints to the at pp. 84-103. State central repository for felony 53Firearms Report, p. 91. arrests. See, Appendix 14.

Page 26 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report User Criminal Fingerprinting Justice Agencies: Agencies: Police, Bail, Arresting Agencies Prosecution, Courts, and Corrections Corrections, Full Criminal Probation/Parole, History Others Records*

Name Full or Fingerprint Summary Search of Cards Computerized Criminal AFIS Criminal History History Data

via mail, hand or mail or electronic terminal transmission

Manual Name Automated Name Index Index Manual Report Arrest Automated Fingerprint and Disposition Fingerprint Records Records Information by (AFIS) Terminal, Mail, Manual Delivery** Automated Criminal Criminal History History Records Records REPOSITORY

mail Full or Partial Fingerprint *Response time may be several days to several weeks. Criminal Card **Reporting may be via an agency automated management information Records*** system, such as a prosecutor case management system (e.g., D.A.’s Assistant) or an Offender-Based State Corrections Information System mail (OBSCIS), or via a parent agency, such as the office of state court administrator. Noncriminal ***Response time may be several weeks to several months. Justice Agency

Figure 2: Flow of Information to State Central Criminal Record Repositories As the arrested individual proceeds repository when an arrested person The reporting time frames are often to subsequent phases of the is released without formal charging longer for “down stream” criminal criminal justice process, other after fingerprints have been sent to justice agencies. The average agencies provide disposition data. the repository, while 21 number of days between final trial For example, the prosecutor’s jurisdictions have no such court dispositions and receipt of office should notify the repository requirement. In this regard, two information by the State repository if initial charges are dropped or States, Michigan and North is 43 days, ranging from less than modified or if new charges are Carolina, require police one day in North Carolina to 180 added. Courts should notify the departments to charge or release a days in Pennsylvania.60 The repository of any final dispositions, suspect prior to sending average time between receipt of such as if the individual is acquitted fingerprints to the State final trial court dispositions by the or convicted. If the individual is repository.57 State repositories and entry of the sentenced to correctional dispositions into criminal history supervision, correctional facilities —Time frame in which databases is 26 days.61 should report receipt and release reporting takes place information to the repository. Access methods for How quickly criminal history authorized requestors —Reporting requirements record information is reported to the State central repository varies —Criminal justice inquiries State and Federal statutes and greatly depending upon the type of regulations impose criminal history agency doing the reporting and The great majority of criminal reporting requirements on criminal other factors. justice inquiries to State justice agencies. Most of these repositories for criminal history reporting requirements are aimed at According to SEARCH’s 1992 record information are received on- ensuring that “down stream” survey of State central repositories, line from remote computer criminal justice agencies — the average number of days terminals. On-line remote terminals prosecutors, courts, between arrest and receipt of arrest provide direct access to the probation/parole offices and data and fingerprints by the State repository’s master name index for corrections agencies — provide repository is 13, ranging from less the purpose of performing searches accurate and prompt disposition than one day in the District of and to the criminal history files for data to the State central repository. Columbia (where the Metropolitan the purpose of obtaining records.62 Police Department is both the For example, 35 States and the reporting agency and the State The remote terminal may be District of Columbia have statutes repository) to 34 days in the State physically located in a police or regulations requiring prosecutors of Missouri.58 The average time department, courthouse, corrections to report decisions to decline between receipt of fingerprints by facility or other criminal justice prosecution in criminal cases to the the State repository and entry of facility. In a few jurisdictions, State repository,55 while 43 States, names and identifying data into the remote terminals have been the District of Columbia, Puerto master name index is 19 days, installed in individual police cars, Rico and the Virgin Islands have ranging from less than one day in giving police officers access to laws or regulations requiring courts North Dakota to 270 days in to report dispositions in felony Louisiana.59 60 56 Ibid, Table 13. Table 13 is cases. included in this report as Appendix 17. 61Ibid. However, there is still substantial 62Fisher-Orsagh Associates, Inc., variation among disposition “Characteristics and Operational reporting requirements. Twenty- Capabilities of State Criminal History nine States require law enforcement Repositories to Supply Prompt and agencies to notify the State central Accurate Criminal History 57 Information” (unpublished report Ibid., Table 7. Table 7 is included provided to the Bureau of Justice in this report as Appendix 15. Statistics, April 25, 1989) p. 2. (This 58 Ibid., Table 12. Table 12 is involved a survey and analysis of 20 55 Ibid, Table 5. included in this report as Appendix 16. State central repositories conducted in 56Ibid. 59Ibid. 1988-1989.)

Page 28 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report criminal history records in the field. (2) If there are multiple “hits” As would be expected, on-line Other criminal justice inquiries to due to similarities in names searches via remote terminals are the repositories come via the and dates of birth, the full the fastest, followed by telephone telephone, walk-in, teletype or identification segments of the inquiries, with mail searches being mail. candidate records can be the slowest. Fingerprint searches retrieved and reviewed to take significantly longer than —Noncriminal justice determine whether there is an searches based solely on name, date inquiries identification. In addition, of birth and other identifiers. For some systems prompt the this reason, many repositories Almost all noncriminal justice searcher to provide additional conduct manual fingerprint inquiries come to the State information to narrow the searches only for criminal justice repositories via the mail. A 1989 search and increase the purposes. As discussed in detail in study of 20 States found that none probability of a hit. Chapter IV, however, automated of these States provides (3) If no match is made, the fingerprint identification systems noncriminal justice agencies with inquirer is given a “no are significantly reducing response direct, on-line access to the State record” response, often times for fingerprint searches. 63 repository. Recently, however, a worded to indicate that no few States have begun to record could be found using experiment with on-line access for the information provided. Section 4: The product some noncriminal justice agencies. of the repositories: If fingerprints are submitted with The criminal history —Computer searches search requests, they may be used record to verify the results of name Computer searches for criminal searches. If name searches fail to history records usually are made This section looks at the identify matching records, repository’s product — the criminal using the subject’s name, date of fingerprints can be utilized to birth, sex and race, although in history record — and includes a perform “technical” searches of discussion of: certain cases, a search can be made fingerprint files to determine using only a name and date of birth. whether the search subjects have ¥ The accuracy and completeness These so-called “name searches” records under different names. (data quality) of criminal history can provide one of three results: Many States require that the records; (1) If there is an exact match or subject’s fingerprints be submitted ¥ Proper linking of arrest and “hit,” the criminal history file with all noncriminal justice access disposition data on records, is provided to the individual requests and permit the release of which is one of the most conducting the search. (If records only when a fingerprint difficult data quality problems there is no exact hit, systems comparison positively verifies that faced by repositories; and in some States search for the record relates to the subject of The content and format of 64 ¥ alternative spellings of the the request. criminal history records, subject’s name in a process including differences in content, known as “fuzzing.” In Response times format and terminology. addition, some systems “fuzz” the subject’s date of Response times vary according to Accuracy and completeness birth by using the given date the purpose of the request and the of birth plus or minus one, communication mode used to The issue of the accuracy and two or more years.) conduct the search. Customarily, completeness of criminal history queries for criminal justice records was identified as an purposes receive a higher priority important concern during the than noncriminal justice searches and thus enjoy a significantly shorter response time.

63Ibid. 641992 Compendium, p. 9.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 29 earliest stages of the development Accurate and complete criminal criminal history files are taken into of a national criminal history record history information also protects account, the number of State central program.65 More recently, the data the privacy interests of individuals, repositories with final dispositions quality issue has emerged as one of ensuring that innocent people are of 50 percent or less increases to the most important and timely not mistakenly arrested and that 14. 68 issues confronting the criminal inaccurate information is purged justice community. from an individual’s criminal For its part, the FBI has well over 3 history record. Finally, accurate million criminal history records As noted earlier, criminal history criminal history record information awaiting final disposition and, by record information plays an affects more than just the criminal most accounts, 50 percent or more essential role at virtually every justice community. Increasingly, of the state-reported criminal stage of the criminal justice criminal history records are being history records maintained by the process. For example: used for a variety of noncriminal Identification Division do not have ¥ The ability of a police officer to justice purposes, including the dispositions. obtain an arrest or search screening of individuals prior to warrant may turn on the public or private employment in While criminal justice officials subject’s criminal history record. sensitive positions and the generally agree that unreported screening of persons seeking to arrests and missing or incomplete A prosecutor may or may not ¥ purchase firearms. disposition data constitute the decide to formally charge an principal data quality problem individual based upon a past In the view of most experts, afflicting criminal history record record. inadequacies in the accuracy and systems, the inaccuracy of arrest ¥ In many States, judges are completeness of criminal history and disposition data also is a required to consider a subject’s records is the single most serious problem. criminal history record in deficiency affecting the Nation’s determining whether to grant or criminal history record information Although there have been few deny bail and in sentencing a systems. audits or reviews of the accuracy of convicted offender. the information maintained by State Although SEARCH’s 1992 survey and Federal criminal history record If criminal history records are not found that in 23 jurisdictions, repositories, most of those that have accurate or if the record lacks a representing 51 percent of the been conducted have found disposition, the record cannot be Nation’s population, 60 percent or unacceptable levels of used at all or, if it is used, there is a more of arrests within the past five inaccuracies.69 These audits have substantial risk that the user will years had final dispositions also shown, however, that make an incorrect or misguided recorded, there is still widespread automating reporting processes and decision. In this regard, former U.S. variation among the States in the using automated edit and review Attorney General Richard extent to which they maintain processes at the repositories to Thornburgh argued that there is a complete disposition data.67 Five monitor data entry and prevent the “straight-line relationship” between State repositories reported that for entry of incomplete or questionable high quality criminal history record arrests logged within the last five data have had a significant information and the effectiveness of years, 90 percent or more have final favorable impact on the quality of the Nation’s criminal justice dispositions recorded, while in 11 the data entered into the system.66 States, final dispositions are repositories’ databases. Efforts to available for 50 percent or less of 65Project SEARCH, Technical the arrests logged within the last 68Ibid. Report No. 2: Security and Privacy five years. When all arrests in State 69For example, SEARCH Group, Considerations in Criminal History Inc., “Alaska Criminal History Record Information Systems (Sacramento, History Records: Proceedings of a Processing — Baseline Assessment” California: California Crime BJS/SEARCH Conference, by (unpublished, March 31, 1993); Technological Research Foundation, SEARCH Group, Inc. (Washington, SEARCH Group, Inc., “Audit of the July 1970). D.C.: Government Printing Office, Completeness and Accuracy of 66U.S. Department of Justice, January 1992) p. 6. (Hereafter, Data Criminal History Record Information Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Quality Conference.) Maintained by the Maryland Criminal Justice Statistics, National Conference 671992 Survey, Table 1. See, Justice Information System” on Improving the Quality of Criminal Appendix 10. (unpublished, January 18, 1990).

Page 30 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report redesign data collection forms and comprehensive criminal history —Case-tracking systems to simplify and standardize record. reporting forms, reporting Some repositories apparently have procedures and reporting Although this system works well, successfully implemented data terminology also have been proven duplicate records for the same linking systems that use the to have a favorable impact on data individual sometimes are created subject’s name in combination with accuracy.70 because of the use of false names the various case identification and identifiers by arrested persons numbers assigned by criminal Linking of arrest and or due to clerical errors. These justice agencies. However, the few disposition data duplicate records are usually extensive repository audits that detected, however, when the have been undertaken have shown Aside from the failure of criminal fingerprints for the newer cases are that accurate linking of data is best justice agencies to report complete processed, and the records are then facilitated by systems that utilize and accurate arrest and disposition consolidated. unique case-tracking numbers.72 data to the repositories, perhaps the most difficult data quality problem A more difficult problem is These case-tracking numbers are faced by the repositories is the encountered when the repositories assigned at the arrest stage (or at proper linking of reported data to try to match reported prosecutor, the case initiation stage, if the case the appropriate individual and case, court and correctional dispositions is not originated by an arrest) and so that arrest, prosecutor, court and with underlying arrest and charging are included with all reported data correctional data are linked to the information for a particular case. associated with that case as it is appropriate offender record and the Although it may be relatively easy processed through the criminal appropriate case event on that to identify the appropriate offender justice system. record. record, it may be difficult to identify the appropriate case on that The unique tracking numbers may —Current practice record to which the reported be pre-printed on fingerprint cards disposition data should be matched. and disposition reporting forms or All of the States and the FBI assign This is particularly problematic may be assigned by arresting unique numbers to identify when the individual has more than agencies and passed along with individual criminal offenders. one active case or when the case papers. Whatever the approach These numbers — FBI numbers reported disposition data for a used, it is important that the unique and State identification (SID) particular case do not appear to tracking number be assigned at the numbers — are assigned upon an match the recorded charge data due time of arrest and that it be attached individual’s first arrest71 and are to such factors as charge to or recorded on the arrest associated with the fingerprints modifications by the prosecutor or fingerprint card forwarded to the taken in connection with that arrest. the acceptance of pleas to lesser central repository. In this way, the The numbers are used thereafter to charges. Failure to properly link tracking number can be tied to identify the individual throughout reported information can result in positive identification of the his criminal career and to ensure unrecorded dispositions or, less arrested individual (and his that all criminal cases in which he commonly, the association of FBI/SID number) and to the is involved are included on a single disposition data with the wrong charges stemming from the arrest. case.

70Data Quality Report, pp. 61-62. 71The State bureau of identification will assign a new SID number to a first 72For example, SEARCH Group, offender and, if the arrest is reported to Inc., “Audit of the Completeness and the FBI, an FBI number will be Accuracy of Criminal History Record assigned and transmitted back to the Information Maintained by the State bureau so that the two numbers Maryland Criminal Justice Information can be associated on the offender’s System, Final Report: Audit Results for record at both the State and Federal Baltimore County and Baltimore City” levels. (unpublished, August 11, 1988).

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 31 In cases which begin by citation or Since many arrests result in tracking number and charge summons (without arrest), the multiple police charges, and since number and a disposition is tracking number is assigned at the initial police charges may be reported and recorded for each individual’s first court appearance modified or augmented at later charge. This enables the repository and the individual’s fingerprints are stages of the case (for example, to account for each charge shown taken at that time and submitted, after prosecutor screening, grand on the criminal history record, thus with the tracking number, to the jury action or plea bargaining), it is eliminating a primary source of repository. common for repositories to receive ambiguity. court dispositions that do not match These unique-number case-tracking the charges initially reported by the Content and format systems have been shown to police. Even though these virtually eliminate data linking disposition data may be associated Although the FBI and SEARCH, problems.73 In automated systems, with the proper case, the criminal among others, have proposed particularly if reporting to the history record may appear model criminal history record repository is automated, procedures ambiguous as to whether the formats over the years, of can be implemented to ensure that disposition data are complete and a uniform criminal history record tracking numbers are accurately accurate. format has never been made entered with all reported disposition mandatory. Likewise, no data. Data entry screens can include This problem has been successfully mandatory guidelines regarding the the tracking number as a required addressed in some States74 by content of criminal history records data field and system edit implementing a refinement of the have ever been promulgated. procedures can reject disposition unique-number tracking system, data entries that do not include the usually referred to as “charge- The State and Federal repositories number. An additional safeguard is tracking.” have been left to adopt their own to include a check digit in the record formats and their own tracking number and to institute Under this approach, each charge approaches concerning the types of system edit procedures to monitor reported to the repository in a offenses that should be included on accurate keying of the number. particular case is assigned a number criminal history records and the (01, 02, 03, for example), and these types of information about these Aside from facilitating data linking, numbers, in combination with the offenses that should be included. unique tracking numbers also tracking number for the case, are Not surprisingly, this has resulted increase the effectiveness of error used in subsequent processing of in considerable diversity in the notification procedures and can the case for reporting disposition formats of the criminal history greatly facilitate data quality data to the repository. If, for records presently generated by the auditing if the numbers are example, a charge is dropped or State repositories, as well as in the included on all source documents. modified by the prosecutor, this content of these records. action is reported to the repository —Charge-tracking systems by charge number and shown on —Differences in content the criminal history record. If new Although unique-number case- charges are added by the prosecutor For example, while virtually all of tracking systems can virtually or a grand jury, these charges are the repositories attempt to obtain ensure that disposition information assigned new numbers and the and record information about all is associated with the right case information is reported to the felony offenses, there is diversity cycle, they do not necessarily repository. Court disposition concerning the types of provide the basis for reliably information is then reported by misdemeanor offenses, if any, associating particular dispositions included on criminal history with particular charges and counts records. Moreover, there are within a particular case. considerable differences in the way State penal codes designate particular offenses as felonies or misdemeanors. Indeed, a few State codes do not even utilize these terms. 73Ibid. 74Illinois is an example.

Page 32 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report As pointed out in Section 2 of this —Problems in deciphering The new system, on the other hand, chapter, there is also diversity records utilizes an “index-pointer” concerning the types of case approach to enable criminal justice processing information obtained As a result of these differences and personnel to obtain criminal history and recorded by the repositories. deficiencies in format, content and records directly from State While some repositories attempt to terminology, many of the criminal repositories in other States. As a obtain little more than arrest history records currently circulated result, criminal justice personnel charges and final dispositions, other by the repositories are difficult to who have in the past received out- repositories obtain and record other decipher, particularly by of-state offender information in a information, including bail and noncriminal justice users and out- single familiar format are now pretrial release data, pretrial of-state users. receiving such information in detention data, prosecutor charge numerous and diverse formats. modifications, and correctional While criminal justice personnel Available evidence suggests that admission and release data. within a particular State usually they are finding these records become familiar enough with the difficult to interpret. At a 1992 —Differences in format and State repository’s criminal history national conference on data quality terminology record format to be able to interpret issues,75 officials from three States the records they receive, acknowledged during question-and- The formats in use vary so greatly noncriminal justice users often lack answer periods that interpretation that it is probably true that no two a sufficient familiarity with of out-of-state records has State criminal history record criminal justice case processing and presented a problem in the formats are identical and many of criminal justice terminology to be implementation of point-of-sale them are not even similar. able to easily interpret and criminal record checks on gun understand the records made purchasers. Selected sample criminal history available to them. Indeed, criminal records are set out in Appendix 8. justice personnel often have —Calls for reform As a review of these samples will difficulty interpreting out-of-state show, the formats vary from records because of differences in Not surprisingly, the problems columnar designs with titles over format and terminology. outlined above have led to calls for values to various forms of linear reforms in the content and format designs utilizing indentations or The problem of the difficulty of of criminal history records. upper- and lower-case type to deciphering out-of-state records has distinguish titles from values. Some become more serious in recent ¥ A national task force convened of the records may leave some data years with the advent of the by the Bureau of Justice Statistics fields blank while others display Interstate Identification Index (III), in 1990 to review disposition “unknown” in all spaces where a national-level criminal history reporting problems and to make information is not provided. record system for servicing recommendations to improve the interstate and Federal-State record quality of criminal history records While most of the formats utilize searches and record exchanges. also looked at the issue of record both literal descriptions as well as (The III system is addressed in format and content. In its 1992 State penal code citations to display Chapter V.) report, the task force found that the arrest charges and disposition content and format of many of charges, the terminology in use In the past, most national searches today’s criminal history records do differs considerably from State to have been serviced by the FBI, not meet the needs of the courts and State. In some formats, disposition utilizing its files of Federal and other users, because, among other charges may not match arrest State offenders. In servicing these problems, the information is not charges in cases where charges requests, the FBI incorporates the presented in a legible format. The were modified or augmented after State offender information in its the initial charges were reported by files into a standard format, the FBI the police. And some formats show rap sheet, with which most criminal dispositions for all charges, while justice personnel in the country others may show only one have become familiar. disposition even if there are multiple charges. 75Data Quality Conference.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 33 task force recommended that each These calls have led to action. In State convene its own high-level May 1992, the Identification task force representing all Services Subcommittee of the components of the criminal justice FBI’s NCIC Advisory Policy Board system to look at data quality developed two improved criminal problems, including “the readability history record formats, one of criminal history records.”76 columnar and the other non- columnar. These formats are to be ¥ The FBI’s National Crime reviewed by the APB’s Regional Information Center Advisory Working Groups during their Policy Board, in the course of its meetings in the fall of 1993.79 evaluation of the first test of the National Fingerprint File (see In addition, the Bureau of Justice Chapter V), found that the lack of Statistics and SEARCH have uniformity in record formats and convened a National Task Force on the difficulty of understanding Increasing the Utility of the records with multistate segments Criminal History Record to have had an adverse impact on the evaluate the content and format of utility of the records made available the criminal history records in use through the Interstate Identification today and to recommend one or Index system.77 more standard formats for use by the States. The Task Force, which ¥ Finally, in its Agenda for is comprised of representatives of Improving Criminal Justice all components of the criminal Information Management, adopted justice system, as well as in July 1991, the Membership noncriminal justice users, held its Group of SEARCH, The National first meeting on May 27-28, 1993. Consortium for Justice Information It is expected to meet twice more and Statistics, recommended that a before issuing a report. study be conducted to evaluate the adequacy of the information Finally, the FBI and the Bureau of included on criminal history Justice Statistics have issued records and that consideration be voluntary reporting standards that given to adopting a common format include recommended minimum for rap sheets among the States.78 data elements for arrest and disposition information reported to the State repositories and to the FBI. The standards are discussed in more detail in Chapter VI and the full text is set out as Appendix 9.

76National Task Force Report, p. 15. 77Federal Bureau of Investigation, NCIC Advisory Policy Board, “Final Report from the November 5-6, 1991, Meeting of the National Fingerprint File (NFF) Pilot Project Evaluation Group” (unpublished, December 31, 79Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1991) p. 3. NCIC Advisory Policy Board, 78SEARCH Group, Inc., “Agenda Identification Services Subcommittee, for Improving Criminal Justice “Chairman’s Report on Identification Information Management” Services Subcommittee” (unpublished, (unpublished, July 19, 1991). May 1992) p. 4.

Page 34 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Chapter III: Overview of laws regulating criminal history record systems

Section 1: Constitutional such a way as to permit the This chapter summarizes and common law Constitution to preempt State relevant law applicable to doctrines statutes that make criminal history criminal history records, and record information available to the focuses on two dominant public or specified public users. criminal history record Constitutional doctrines information issues: data quality Common law doctrines and dissemination. The courts have ruled that constitutional privacy principles Common law privacy doctrines Section 1: Constitutional and have little impact on the collection, have also proven to be largely common law doctrines, maintenance or dissemination of irrelevant to the handling of discusses the impact of these criminal history record information criminal history record information. doctrines on the collection, by criminal justice agencies. It is no Sovereign immunity, civil and maintenance or dissemination exaggeration to say that the U.S. official immunity and the need to of criminal history record Constitution is largely neutral with show tangible harm arising from information. respect to the dissemination of the alleged misuse of the criminal criminal history record information. history records pose Section 2: Statutory and insurmountable obstacles to most regulatory requirements, The Constitution does recognize common law actions by record reviews the various Federal that there is a legitimate privacy subjects.83 and State statutes and interest in sensitive personal regulations that govern the information.80 In 1976, however, collection, maintenance and the U.S. Supreme Court held, in Section 2: Statutory and dissemination of criminal Paul v. Davis, that constitutional regulatory requirements history record information. privacy principles do not limit dissemination by criminal justice The collection, maintenance and Section 3: Two key issues — agencies of information about official acts such as an arrest.81 dissemination of criminal history data quality and record information is governed by a dissemination, discusses these More recently, in a statutory mosaic of Federal and State statutes dominant criminal history and regulations. record issues in detail. As for context, the Court has recognized data quality, how accurate and that there is a privacy interest in an complete should criminal automated comprehensive criminal history record information be history record.82 Most experts, and how can legal directives however, think it is unlikely that and other strategies help to this principle will be applied in improve data quality? As for 83SEARCH Group, Inc., Technical dissemination, how Memorandum No. 12: Criminal Justice confidential should criminal Information: Perspectives on Liability history record information be (Sacramento, California: SEARCH and, to the extent that the 80 Group, Inc., August 1977) pp. 5-20. records are not confidential, Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 See also, SEARCH Group, Inc., Case (1977). Law Digest: Court Decisions on the who should be permitted to see 81 them and for what purposes? 424 U.S. 693, 713 (1976). Handling of Criminal History Records 82Department of Justice v. — Summaries and Analysis, by Robert Reporters Committee for Freedom of R. Belair and Paul L. Woodard (July the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (1989). 1981).

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 35 Federal statutes and Although the Congress never State statutes and regulations regulations enacted comprehensive legislation, it did enact a 1973 amendment to As intended, the LEAA regulations At the Federal level, the Congress the Omnibus Crime Control and proved instrumental in stimulating by law and the Department of Safe Streets Act of 1968, the so- the States to enact their own Justice by regulation have called Kennedy Amendment,85 statutes dealing with criminal established minimum requirements providing that all criminal history history records, including the for the management of criminal record information collected, establishment of State central history record systems, leaving it to maintained or disseminated by repositories. the States to develop more specific State and local criminal justice laws and policies to attempt to agencies with financial support Approximately one-half of the ensure that State criminal history made available under the Act must States have enacted comprehensive records are complete, accurate, be complete and secure, must be criminal history record statutes and easily accessible to lawful users made available for review and all of the other States have enacted and held in confidence with respect challenge by record subjects, and laws dealing with at least some to the public and other authorized must be used only for law aspects of criminal history records. users. enforcement and other lawful Many of these laws impose purposes. requirements that are stricter than —Statutes the requirements in the LEAA —Regulations regulations.87 The FBI’s basic statutory authority to maintain criminal history records In 1976, the Law Enforcement Virtually all of the States have is found in Section 534 of Title 28 Assistance Administration (LEAA) enacted legislation governing at of the United States Code. issued comprehensive regulations least the dissemination of criminal Specifically, subsections (a)(1) and to implement the amendment. history records. The overwhelming (a)(4) authorize the Attorney Although the regulations did not majority of State laws follow the General to “acquire, collect, expressly require the States to scheme of the Federal regulations, classify and preserve identification, establish central criminal history which distinguish between criminal identification, crime and record repositories, the commentary information referring to convictions other records” and to “exchange published with the regulations and current arrests on the one hand, such records and information with, noted that the accuracy and and nonconviction data on the and for the official use of, completeness standards were other. Nonconviction information authorized officials of the Federal written with State central refers to arrests that are more than Government, the States, cities and repositories in mind. Indeed, one year old and are without penal and other institutions.”84 provisions dealing with recorded dispositions or that have completeness state that complete dispositions favorable to the During the early 1970s, at a time records “should” be maintained in accused, such as where the police when public concern about privacy, State central repositories.86 or prosecutor drop the charges or automation, and governmental and where the accused is acquitted at private information systems was trial. Most States place strict limits running high, the Congress on the release of nonconviction considered several legislative data for noncriminal justice proposals that would have imposed purposes, such as background a uniform national information checks for employment and management scheme for State and licensing purposes. local handling of criminal history record information. 85Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. ¤ 3789g(b), as amended by ¤ 524(b) of 84Other Federal laws and the Crime Control Act of 1973, Pub. L. regulations authorizing the Attorney No. 93-83, 87 Stat. 197 (1973) General to disseminate criminal history (sometimes referred to as the “Kennedy records are set out in Chapter V, Amendment”). footnote 124. 8628 C.F.R. ¤ 20.21(a)(1). 871992 Compendium, p. 4.

Page 36 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Every State permits subjects to Federal data quality require that State and local agencies review their records and to institute regulations must query the State central procedures to correct errors. repository prior to disseminating Virtually all of the States require As noted previously, data quality any criminal history information to the fingerprinting of persons was one of the primary concerns ensure that the agency has the most arrested for serious offenses and the motivating passage of the Kennedy recent disposition data available.89 submission of such fingerprints to Amendment in 1973 and the the State repository and, in subsequent adoption of the LEAA —Accuracy provisions addition, most of the States have regulations. Reflecting sensitivity statutory or regulatory provisions to the wide disparity in the quality The regulations address accuracy requiring criminal justice agencies of records in State criminal history by defining the term literally to to report disposition information to record systems, the Kennedy mean that “no record containing the repository. Amendment provides that State criminal history information shall criminal history records must be contain erroneous information.”90 complete and accurate, but does not To promote accuracy, two types of Section 3: Two key set specific data quality standards. operational procedures are issues — data quality The LEAA regulations provide required: and dissemination somewhat more specific guidance (1) A process of data collection, to the States, although the entry, storage and systematic regulations still leave the States In the years since the issuance of audit that will minimize the wide discretion to set their own the LEAA regulations, State possibility of recording or standards by State legislation and legislative activity, as well as media storing inaccurate regulations. and public policy debate, have information; and focused on two key issues with (2) Procedures for sending Specifically, the Federal regulations respect to criminal history record notices of corrections to all require all covered criminal justice information: data quality and criminal justice agencies agencies to implement operational dissemination. known to have received procedures designed to ensure that inaccurate information of a criminal history record information This section discusses these two material nature. is complete and accurate.88 issues in more detail, including a look at: —Completeness provisions As a practical matter, this provision ¥ Federal data quality regulations; requires agencies to maintain dissemination log books so that State laws and strategies To be complete, the regulations ¥ corrections can be sent to designed to improve data state that a record of an arrest must individuals who have received quality, such as mandatory contain information concerning any incorrect information. Finally, the reporting requirements, disposition occurring within the regulations require agencies to give transaction log requirements and State within 90 days after the subjects an opportunity to review other data quality safeguards; disposition has occurred. In an their criminal history records and to ¥ Dissemination of criminal effort to promote the dissemination of complete and up-to-date criminal establish procedures for correcting history records for criminal erroneous information.91 justice and noncriminal justice history records, the regulations also purposes, dissemination trends, and statutory dissemination 8928 C.F.R. ¤ 20.21(a)(2). The policies in the early 1990s. regulations provide two exceptions where prior contact with the State central repository is not necessary: (1) when the agency is sure that the criminal history information is the most recent available; or (2) when time is of the essence and the repository is incapable of responding within the necessary time period. 9028 C.F.R. ¤ 20.21(a)(1). 8828 C.F.R. ¤ 20.21(a). 9128 C.F.R. ¤ 20.21(g).

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 37 State data quality laws and —Transaction log audits;95 21 States require the strategies requirements repositories to audit State and local criminal justice agencies that The Federal LEAA regulations had The second most common form of submit records to the repository;96 the intended effect of prompting the statutory data quality safeguard, and 14 States require the repository States to adopt laws to ensure the after mandatory arrest and to conduct an annual in-house accuracy and completeness of disposition reporting requirements, audit.97 criminal history records. In 1974, is transaction log requirements. prior to adoption of the regulations, Thirty-three States have enacted Statutes in 13 States require the only 14 States had enacted any type statutes requiring criminal justice repository to implement a of statutory data quality safeguards. agencies to maintain logs delinquent disposition monitoring 52 States92 have now adopted laws identifying recipients of criminal system (for example, a system that deal with some aspect of data history record information and the designed to periodically identify quality. These laws and dates of the disseminations.93 arrest entries for which dispositions implementing regulations are Thirty-three States include detailed are probably available but not discussed in the following sections. and specific transaction log reported).98 Four States impose requirements.94 training requirements on personnel —Mandatory reporting involved in entering data into requirements —Other requirements criminal history record systems.99 Five States have adopted statutory An important element of virtually Many States have also adopted a all of the State data quality laws is variety of other statutory mandatory arrest and disposition safeguards. Thirty States require reporting. In all, 52 jurisdictions, as the State central repository to 95Ibid., p. 6. These states are as a matter of statute, regulation or conduct some type of data quality follows: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, established practice, require State California, Connecticut, Delaware, and local agencies to report arrest Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, and disposition data to the State Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, central repository for all serious Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New offenses (usually felonies and Hampshire, North Carolina, Oregon, specified serious misdemeanors). In Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, South most States, arrest information is Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, reported on arrest fingerprint cards, Virginia, Washington and Wyoming. which include the subject’s name 96Ibid. These states are as follows: and identification information, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, arrest event information (for 931992 Compendium, p. 6. These Georgia, Hawaii, Kentucky, Louisiana, example, date, place of arrest), states are as follows: Alabama, Alaska, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, New arrest charges and inked fingerprint Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Hampshire, North Carolina, Oregon, impressions. Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, South Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Virginia, Washington and Wyoming. 97 Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Ibid., pp. 6-7. These states are as Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, follows: California, Illinois, Kentucky, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, New Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, South Hampshire, North Carolina, Oregon, Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Virginia, Washington and Wyoming. Dakota, Texas and Wyoming. 98 94Ibid., note 22 at p. 6. These states Ibid., p. 7. These states are as are as follows: Alabama, Alaska, follows: Connecticut, Delaware, California, Connecticut, Florida, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, 92The term “State” includes the Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Hampshire and District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Washington. the U.S. Virgin Islands. Every State Hampshire, North Carolina, 99Ibid. These states are as follows: except the Virgin Islands has enacted a Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky and data quality statute. Vermont, Virginia and Washington. Louisiana.

Page 38 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report provisions that require the use of a Dissemination of criminal ¥ Correctional classification “tracking number system” that uses history record information purposes; and unique case cycle numbers to link Parole eligibility determinations. disposition information to charge There is wide agreement, as a ¥ information.100 policy matter, about the importance As noted in Chapter I, numerous and the need for the highest State statutes have been adopted in —Data quality strategies possible quality of criminal history recent years that not only reflect record information. There is far less these trends but, in fact, require In addition to statutory agreement as a policy matter with criminal justice decisionmakers to requirements, State central respect to the other issue that has take criminal history record repositories report that they have dominated criminal history record information into account.105 voluntarily employed a number of information policy — the purposes data quality improvement for which criminal history record —Dissemination for strategies, even though those information should be noncriminal justice purposes strategies are not mandated by disseminated. statute. For example, 15 State Use of criminal history record repositories and Puerto Rico report —Dissemination for criminal information for noncriminal justice that they are currently using a justice purposes purposes, however, has been a delinquent disposition monitoring much more problematic matter. In system that generates a list of From the outset, it has been recent years, many public and arrests with no dispositions. recognized that criminal history private noncriminal justice agencies Repositories in 28 States make field record information should be have made persuasive arguments visits to contributing agencies. available for virtually all purposes for access to these records. Thirty-six State repositories send related to law enforcement and the Governmental agencies and, in form letters indicating data quality administration of criminal justice. particular, national security problems, and repositories in 38 Indeed, the criminal history record agencies and the military services States, Puerto Rico and the Virgin owes its creation to the recognition have argued that it is essential that Islands telephone contributing that such a record would be of they be able to obtain criminal agencies to discuss problems.101 critical importance for criminal Further, repositories in 39 justice decisionmaking. history information for use in jurisdictions are using some type of making decisions about eligibility tracking number system to link In recent years, there has been a for military service, for security disposition and charge significant increase in the clearances and for access to information.102 In addition, 25 availability and use of criminal sensitive facilities. jurisdictions have undergone data history record information within quality audits in the past five the criminal justice community for Responding to these needs, the years103 and 22 States and Puerto a wide variety of criminal justice Congress in 1985 enacted the Rico have conducted audits of purposes. These purposes include Security Clearance Information Act agencies that contribute criminal using criminal history record (SCIA), which requires State and history information to the information for: local criminal justice agencies to release criminal history record repository or obtain information ¥ Bail and other pretrial from the repository.104 information to certain Federal determinations; agencies for national security ¥ Prosecution, including decisions background checks.106 100 Ibid. These states are as follows: about the upgrading of charges; Kentucky, Missouri, Pennsylvania, ¥ The enhancement of sentences, Texas and Washington. including, in particular, 101 1992 Survey, Table 15. Table enhancement with respect to 15 is included in this report as chronic offenders; Appendix 18. 105 Statutes Report, Tables 1-10. 102 ¥ Preparing pre-sentence reports Ibid., Table 16. Table 16 is Selected tables from the Statutes Report included in this report as Appendix 19. and making probation eligibility decisions; are set out in this report as Appendices 103 Ibid., Table 20. Table 20 is 1-7. included in this report as Appendix 20. 106 Pub. L. No. 99-169, codified in 104 Ibid., Table 19. part at 5 U.S.C. ¤ 9101.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 39 Private employers have also argued been Furthermore, advocates point to the persuasively that they should be completed.108 fact that many criminal history entitled to obtain criminal history records are inaccurate or record information for background Some proponents of more open incomplete or no longer timely and, checks on prospective employees access to criminal history records for all of these reasons, fail to who will be placed in sensitive have argued that inasmuch as an present an accurate and positions handling substantial arrest and any subsequent representative image of the record amounts of money or other adjudication are public events, the subject. Advocates argue that, at a valuable assets or, even more records of those events, particularly minimum, only conviction record importantly, caring for vulnerable when maintained by governmental information should be made populations, such as children or agencies at public expense, should available for noncriminal justice elderly persons. In this connection, be available to the public without purposes and that arrest information the Congress passed legislation in regard to the requestor’s identity or without a recorded disposition the 1980s permitting federally-held need for the record. Indeed, at least should be withheld in deference to criminal history record information a few States, including Florida, the presumption of innocence.110 to be released for employment Oklahoma and Wisconsin, have background checks for positions at adopted policies under which the —Dissemination trends certain kinds of banking institutions public can obtain virtually all and securities organizations.107 criminal history record information In the decade from the mid-1960s for virtually any purpose. Initial through the mid-1970s, most Landlords have also argued for studies indicate that these “open experts felt that dissemination access to criminal history record record” policies have not resulted trends moved in the direction of information for background checks in significant privacy problems or increased confidentiality and the of employees. Indeed, both other problems.109 imposition of restrictions upon the employers and landlords have been release of criminal history records found liable under the negligent On the other hand, advocates of for noncriminal justice purposes. hiring doctrine for failing to check stricter dissemination limits argue However, as mentioned earlier, available criminal history data in that criminal history record congressional efforts in the early cases where the putative subjects of information can be and is used to 1970s to set nationwide standards those checks subsequently engaged stigmatize and harm offenders who for the dissemination of criminal in destructive and unlawful are trying to rehabilitate themselves history records for noncriminal behavior that might have been and re-enter society. These justice purposes failed. predicted and avoided had a advocates also argue that release of this kind of information has a Similarly, the LEAA regulations disproportionately adverse impact refrained from attempting to 107 15 U.S.C. ¤ 78q(f)(2). Today, on minorities and the young. establish a uniform national numerous States permit or require the standard for noncriminal justice release of criminal history information access. Rather, the regulations gave for background checks for individuals State legislatures and State who work with children. See, U.S. executive agencies broad authority Department of Justice, Office of Justice to set their own standards Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 108 governing the dissemination of Public Access to Criminal History U.S. Department of Justice, criminal history records for Record Information, Criminal Justice Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Privacy and the noncriminal justice purposes. Information Policy series, by Robert R. Specifically, the regulations Belair, SEARCH Group, Inc. Private Employer, Criminal Justice (Washington, D.C.: Government Information Policy series, by SEARCH authorized noncriminal justice Printing Office, November 1988) p. 29. Group, Inc. (Washington, D.C.: See also, Pub. L. 92-544, 86 Stat. 1109, Government Printing Office, December which authorizes the FBI to 1981) pp. 47-52. 110 See SEARCH Group, Inc., disseminate criminal history records to 109 See SEARCH Group, Inc., A Technical Report No. 13: Standards for State and local governments for Florida Case Study — Availability of Security and Privacy of Criminal employment and licensing purposes Criminal History Records: The Effect History Record Information, third when authorized by a State statute and of an Open Records Policy edition (Sacramento, California: approved by the U.S. Attorney General (Sacramento, California: SEARCH SEARCH Group, Inc., July 1988) pp. (October 25, 1972). Group, Inc., March 1990). 2-5.

Page 40 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report access if “authorized by statute, For the next 15 years following this —Statutory dissemination ordinance, executive order, or court decision, the trend in both judicial policies in the early 1990s rule, decision or order as construed decisions and statutory enactments by appropriate State or local was decidedly in the direction of Despite a fair amount of variance, officials or agencies.”111 The making criminal history record most State statutory dissemination States initially used this flexibility information more available to the schemes now share at least two to enact legislation that, for the private sector and even to the common elements: most part, restricted private sector public. (1) A majority of States now access to criminal history records permit access to criminal and particularly to nonconviction As the 1990s start, however, there history records for some 112 records. are signs that the pendulum may be compelling noncriminal swinging again in the direction of justice purposes, including, In the mid-1970s, this trend privacy. Once again the bellwether for instance, background reversed. Most observers cite the is a U.S. Supreme Court decision. screening by licensing boards U.S. Supreme Court’s 1976 In 1989, in Department of Justice v. and private employers of 113 decision in Paul v. Davis as Reporters Committee for Freedom applicants for sensitive 115 providing impetus for judicial and, of the Press, the Supreme Court positions, such as those in particular, statutory efforts to held that an individual has a involving child care, public loosen restrictions on access to cognizable privacy interest in his safety, supervision of criminal history records. In that criminal history record information, property or fiduciary case, the Supreme Court rejected a even though all of the constituent responsibilities.117 record subject’s claim that a law parts of the record may be public (2) Most States continue to treat enforcement agency’s public information. The Court reasoned conviction records differently dissemination of a flyer that that the compilation of an entire from nonconviction records. included his name and photograph history of an individual’s criminal and identified him as an active activity, and, in particular, its Customarily, the States place few shoplifter violated his constitutional automation in a format that makes or no restrictions on the right of privacy. The Court the record easily retrievable, vastly dissemination of conviction records dismissed the notion that an arrest increases the privacy risk to the and a number of States also do not record is private information: record subject and makes it restrict the dissemination of open appropriate to extend privacy [Davis] claims constitutional arrest records less than one year protections to the record. protection against the disclosure old. Nonconviction records, of the fact of his arrest on a however, including records of cases At the start of the 1990s, polling shoplifting charge. His claim is with no disposition recorded after data also indicate that privacy based not upon any challenge to the passage of a year or longer, are concerns are at historic high the state’s ability to restrict his restricted in most States and in levels.116 In addition, in the early freedom of action in a sphere some States may not be contended to be private, but 1990s, serious congressional consideration has been given to disseminated at all for noncriminal instead on a claim that the state justice purposes or may be may not publicize a record of an several pieces of Federal legislation that would restrict access to disseminated only for limited and official act such as an arrest. specifically defined purposes.118 None of our substantive privacy previously public record decisions hold this or anything information, such as motor vehicle like this, and we decline to records and change-of-address enlarge them in this manner.114 information maintained by the U.S. Postal Service.

115 489 U.S. 749 (1989). 116 111 28 C.F.R. ¤ 20.21(b)(2). Louis Harris & Associates, The 112 Equifax Report on Consumers in the 1992 Compendium, p. 8. Information Age, prepared by Alan 113 117 424 U.S. 693 (1976). Westin (Atlanta, Georgia: Louis Harris 1992 Compendium, p. 9. 114 Ibid., p. 713. & Associates, 1990) p. 5. 118 Ibid.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 41 Page 42 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Chapter IV: The impact of new technologies

Background In addition to the automation of Perhaps the most significant criminal history record databases factor in the successful At the beginning of the 1970s, only and the provision of remote evolution of the Nation’s a few of the State repositories were terminal access to user agencies, criminal history record substantially automated and computer technology is being repositories has been the accessible to user agencies by applied in other ways to improve widespread application of computer terminals. By the end of the efficiency of the Nation’s computer technology to that decade, thanks in large part to criminal history record repositories improve their efficiency and financial and technical assistance and the quality of the information increase the quality of the made available by the Law they maintain. information they maintain. Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA), the Section 1: Automated This chapter briefly describes majority of the repositories were reporting to the the utilization of new computer utilizing automated data processing repositories technology in criminal justice equipment to maintain their agencies. criminal history record databases. Although most criminal justice agencies now have terminal access Section 1: Automated In addition, almost all of them were to their State repositories and to the reporting to the repositories, providing terminal access to user FBI’s files for conducting name discusses how technology is agencies by means of a statewide searches and obtaining automated speeding up the process of telecommunications system. Today, records, the reporting of case reporting arrest and disposition all except seven of the repositories processing information to the data to the repositories. maintain automated databases and repositories and to the FBI is those seven States are in the accomplished predominantly Section 2: Automated process of installing automated through mailed paper documents — fingerprint processing, systems. (See Chapter VI.) discusses how technology is arrest fingerprint cards and disposition forms. Increasingly, speeding up the production, Surveys show that State repository however, computer technology is transmission and processing of officials overwhelmingly believe being used to speed the reporting fingerprints. that automation is the development process and save resources. that has resulted in the greatest improvement in information This section discusses methods for: management in their agencies, and is the single most important tool for ¥ Automated arrest reporting; and achieving greater efficiency and ¥ Automated disposition reporting. better data quality. Automated systems make it more practical and economical to implement many data quality enhancement strategies, such as improved data entry and editing procedures, data- linking methods and systems for monitoring the reporting of information by criminal justice agencies.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 43 Automated arrest reporting information required by the State disposition information required by repository for its criminal history the repositories. This information —Problems with manual database, these systems are being can be generated in magnetic tape reporting utilized in some jurisdictions as the form or directly entered into the basis for automated arrest reporting repository database. Historically, arrest information119 to the repositories, by computer has been reported to the State tape or by direct computer-to- —Reporting by local repositories and to the FBI on computer transmission. prosecutors, courts fingerprint cards. In addition to spaces for inked fingerprint —Benefits Moderately priced or public domain impressions, these cards contain software has been available for spaces for typing or writing in Direct computer linkage can some years to support prosecutor textual information. Many State provide for real-time transmission, information management systems. laws require fingerprint cards for which means that the information As a result, many high-volume reportable offenses to be submitted can be entered into the repository prosecutors’ offices and some to the repositories within 24 to 48 database as the arrested person is smaller offices have installed hours after the arrests, while most booked at the local agency, automated case management of the other States require immediately following the arrest. systems. Similarly, courts in some submission “promptly” or “without high-volume jurisdictions also have undue delay.” These automated booking systems installed automated case can incorporate the same kinds of management systems. Some State Even where these laws are edit and verification programs used repositories are implementing links complied with, however, mailing by the repository to guard against with these local prosecutor and time and normal processing time at the entry of inaccurate information court systems to obtain disposition the repository may mean that arrest and to make sure that all required information in automated form. information is not entered into the information is entered. Redundant repository’s database until a week typing of arrest information by —Reporting by State courts or more after the arrests. In addition arresting agency personnel is systems to the delay, the manual processing eliminated, as is the necessity for of fingerprint cards and the entry of data entry at the repository. Some of the States with unified arrest information by repository court systems have implemented personnel is a significant drain on Fingerprint cards must still be automated information repository resources. mailed to the repository for management systems at the State identification, but, as explained in level. In some of these States, local —Automation aids in arrest Section 2 of this chapter, in some courts report case disposition reporting cases fingerprint images can be information to the State system, by transmitted to the repository paper forms or on computer tape, Many high-volume law electronically. and the State system then edits and enforcement agencies throughout combines this information and the country have implemented Automated disposition reports to the State criminal history automated information reporting repository, by computer tape or by management systems, including direct electronic link. automated booking components. The mailing of paper disposition Since the information entered into forms to the repositories by —Reporting by State these systems for local agency use prosecutors, courts and correctional corrections typically includes all of the arrest agencies also is being replaced in some jurisdictions by automated Finally, some States have reporting. Many of these agencies implemented state-level automated have installed automated case correctional information systems or management systems which can be have installed automated used to generate the case information systems in some State 119 This includes subject correctional facilities. These identification information, as well as systems typically can generate the information specific to the arrest event correctional disposition information and the arrest charges.

Page 44 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report needed by the criminal history Background number of fingerprint cards record repositories and are being are returned to local agencies used in some States to report the Fingerprints are submitted to by the State identification information in automated form. identification bureaus — which are bureaus and the FBI as usually part of or closely associated unusable because of the poor —Benefits with the criminal history record quality of the fingerprint repositories — primarily as a result impressions. Automated reporting techniques of an arrest or a criminal make disposition reporting more investigation, or in connection with (2) The preparation, mailing and accurate, since duplicate data entry employment or licensing processing of fingerprint processes are eliminated, and also applications. Until recent years, cards can consume a result in faster, easier and more these arrest and applicant considerable amount of time, economical reporting. fingerprints were submitted almost resulting in a delay of a week exclusively in the form of inked to several weeks between In some cases, careful planning and impressions rolled onto ten-print booking and receipt of a cooperation between local and State cards transmitted by mail or criminal history response agencies has resulted in the courier. from the repository. This implementation of automated means that arrested or systems in those agencies that: At the identification bureaus, if an detained persons who use (1) Have saved time and money initial name search of the master fictitious names to avoid for the agencies in name index failed to discover a association with their prior performing their own previous record for the subject, the criminal records may be recordkeeping functions; and fingerprints were manually released without being charged, released on bail, (2) Have made reporting to the classified according to distinctive improperly charged or even State repository a by-product ridge patterns and searched against improperly sentenced before of these functions. similarly classified criminal fingerprint files to determine their true identities are This occurs when agencies whether the individual had a prior known. Similarly, unsuitable cooperate in adopting procedures criminal record under a different persons may be employed in which allow the linkage of arrests name. sensitive positions before and/or charges to dispositions. their true identities and —Problems with manual criminal backgrounds are fingerprint processing discovered. Section 2: Automated fingerprint processing Although fingerprints are unique (3) The manual classification and and unchanging and provide a basis searching of fingerprints by During the last decade, automated for highly accurate and reliable identification bureau data processing technology has identification, the manual personnel is labor-intensive helped to solve serious problems procedures described above, which and error-prone, especially if created by the manual processing of are still in use in many States, have technicians are not properly arrestee and applicant fingerprints. several shortcomings, as outlined trained and experienced. As a below. result, missed or erroneous This section discusses the problems identifications can occur and, of manual fingerprint processing (1) The inked fingerprinting even though the classification and describes new technologies that process is very time- of incoming prints limits the have focused on two aspects of consuming, especially since search to a part of the criminal justice fingerprint multiple copies typically are existing criminal fingerprint processing: produced, and trained and files, such files are so ¥ The production and transmission experienced personnel are massive in most States that of fingerprint images; and required in order to obtain substantial manpower must good quality prints on a be devoted to manual The use of automated fingerprint ¥ consistent basis. A substantial fingerprint processing. identification systems to search fingerprint files.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 45 Fingerprint image production automated fingerprint processing in the computer’s memory. This and transmission devices, which are discussed below. concept of computerized digital image processing has eliminated Arrest fingerprints historically have —Card-scan devices the necessity to manually search been produced as inked impressions fingerprints and has increased the rolled onto cardstock, a process that Law enforcement agencies also speed and accuracy of ten-print is time-consuming and results in may use newly-developed “card processing. significant numbers of low quality scanner” devices to eliminate the prints. necessity of mailing fingerprint Aside from automated scanning and cards. These machines can scan searching, the technology offers —Live-scan devices standard inked fingerprint cards and other important advantages over can transmit electronic images of manual procedures. In manual In the past few years, a new the fingerprint images, together processing, if the name search technology, called “live-scan” with keyed textual data from the performed as the initial step in the fingerprinting, has proved to be a fingerprint cards, to the State processing of an incoming viable method of producing higher identification bureau, the FBI or fingerprint card produces one or average quality fingerprint other remote sites. more match candidates, the impressions quickly and with technician must use the agency’s reduced labor costs. Live-scan and card-scan technology hard copy fingerprint files to is expensive, however, and retrieve the fingerprints associated The technology eliminates the currently is in limited use, with the candidates. The technician necessity of rolling the subject’s principally in large volume law must then manually compare them fingers onto inked pads and then enforcement agencies. with the incoming prints to onto multiple fingerprint cards. determine whether there is a Instead, the subject’s uninked Use of automated fingerprint verifiable match. If this process fingers are rolled onto a scanning identification systems to does not result in a match, the pad attached to the live-scan search files technician must manually classify device, which enables the device to the incoming fingerprints and then capture an image of the fingerprints The technology that has had the use the hard-copy files to retrieve and then print out multiple greatest impact on fingerprint and compare stored fingerprints of fingerprint cards as needed. The processing is Automated the same or similar classification in machines enable the operator to Fingerprint Identification System an effort to find a match. evaluate the quality of the (AFIS) technology, which provides fingerprint impressions thus improved methods of searching The AFIS technology not only produced and re-roll fingers if fingerprint files and transmitting eliminates this type of searching, it necessary, resulting in a significant fingerprint images. also provides the capability of improvement in the average quality rapidly retrieving stored digital of the fingerprints. —AFIS benefits information about probable matching fingerprints and Fingerprints produced by live-scan This newly developed computer displaying computer-generated devices can be printed out at the equipment can scan fingerprint images of both the incoming search local agencies where the machines impressions and automatically print and the retrieved candidate are located and copies mailed to the extract and digitize identifying prints side-by-side on the operator’s State repository. Copies can also be characteristics in sufficient detail to screen. This enables the operator to printed out on remote printers enable the computer’s searching visually verify the match without located at the repository, and matching algorithms to leaving the terminal. eliminating the necessity of distinguish a single fingerprint from mailing. The devices also offer the thousands or even millions of file possibility of converting the prints that have been similarly fingerprint images to electronic scanned and stored in digital form images that are computer-readable and can be transmitted to the repositories and directly utilized by

Page 46 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report —State AFISs Under IAFIS, fingerprint images will achieve improvements in the will be taken at local law quality and efficiency of the At present, 39 of the State enforcement agencies by live-scan identification services they provide. identification bureaus have AFIS or card-scan equipment, processed These services support local systems or are in the process of at a local AFIS and then criminal justice agencies within the procuring them, and most of the electronically transmitted to and States, and also governmental and other bureaus have plans to acquire processed by a State identification private employers who require AFIS systems at some future time. bureau AFIS. If an identification is fingerprint-based criminal history Many local law enforcement not made at the local or State level, checks as part of the employment agencies in larger cities also have the fingerprint data and related or licensing process. The AFIS equipment and other cities textual data will be transmitted to improvements that can be expected are expected to acquire them. The the FBI and processed by its AFIS include increased identification digital image transmission and a response returned accuracy, reductions in response capability of the systems will electronically to the local booking times for urgent identification enable these agencies to have station. requests, reduction in labor costs remote access to their State associated with data entry and identification bureau’s AFIS The entire process can consume filing, and increased file security fingerprint files for purposes of two hours or less. This will mean through the paperless file performing computerized that law enforcement agencies will concept.120 fingerprint searches and retrieving be able to identify previous fingerprint images for screen offenders and fugitives, even if they display or hard-copy printout. use false identities, and obtain Communication from one vendor’s criminal history record information AFIS to another vendor’s AFIS has about them prior to their release not yet been accomplished. from the booking station or their initial court appearance for bail —Federal AFIS setting. (See Figure 3, which illustrates the core IAFIS service.) At the national level, the FBI currently is in the early stages of The Federal components of IAFIS implementing a new fingerprint will be located at the FBI’s new image-based identification system Criminal Justice Information which can meet projected increases Services (CJIS) Division facility in in FBI workloads. This new system Clarksburg, West Virginia, and are ultimately will offer the capability expected to be operational in 1996. of making it possible to eliminate Although local and State paper fingerprint cards at every step governments are not required to of the identification process. This alter their identification services so national system is called IAFIS as to adapt to the FBI changes, (Integrated Automated Fingerprint States and localities which do adapt Identification System). A new subsystem, the Identification Tasking and Network (ITN) subsystem, will provide the workstations, workflow control, telecommunications and fingerprint image files to support paperless processing. 120 See, Federal Bureau of Information, National Crime Information Center Advisory Policy Board, Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) Planning Guide (Washington, D.C.: Federal Bureau of Investigation, April 30, 1993).

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 47 via State Law Enforcement Network Ident. Response

Booking Station (Live-scan and Booking Data STATE AFIS Workstation) via State Law Enforcement Network (ANSI Standard Format)

Non-Ident. Booking Data

via NCIC (ANSI Standard Format)

FBI CJIS DIVISION

Computer Search Fingerprint of the Image Comparison FBI Name and Fingerprint Features Databases

Ident. Response via NCIC

Figure 3: IAFIS Service Electronic Criminal Ten-Print Submission Chapter V: National criminal history record checks and the Interstate Identification Index

Background pertaining to Federal and State This chapter describes offenders. Most search applications procedures for conducting Most persons arrested for criminal were handled by mail and required national criminal record checks offenses have prior arrest records manual processing by FBI for criminal justice and and many of them have arrest personnel. noncriminal justice purposes, records in more than one State. and also provides an in-depth Federal Bureau of Investigation In 1971, the FBI’s National Crime look at the Interstate (FBI) officials have estimated that Information Center (NCIC) Identification Index. of all Federal and State arrest implemented an on-line interstate fingerprint cards processed by the computerized system called the Section 1: Maintenance and FBI, which includes submissions Computerized Criminal History use of current FBI files, for most of the arrests in the (CCH) Program. Like the FBI addresses national criminal country for serious offenses, two- manual system, CCH was a history checks using FBI files. thirds of the arrest subjects have “national repository” system; that The section covers the FBI’s prior arrests. Further, of the is, full criminal history records for current practice, authorized criminal subjects in the FBI’s Federal offenders and State categories of users, and automated files of State and Federal offenders from participating States terminal access to FBI files for offenders, an estimated 25 to 30 were maintained in the FBI’s criminal justice and percent are “multistate” offenders; centralized database. The system noncriminal justice inquiries. that is, they have both Federal and was used for both criminal justice State records or arrests in more than and noncriminal justice purposes. Section 2: The Interstate one State.121 Access for criminal justice Identification Index, purposes was by name search or by describes the III concept and Obviously, then, there is a need for Federal and State identification explains how the processing of some efficient means of performing numbers submitted by terminals on search inquiries and record a national criminal record search the nationwide NCIC network. responses under that approach other than the impractical approach Applications for searches for works. of making separate queries to all of authorized noncriminal justice the other States and jurisdictions purposes required either a State or Section 3: III system impact, that operate central criminal history Federal identification number for identifies the principal benefits record repositories. an on-line record or the submission and impacts of the III system of fingerprint cards to the FBI by for the States and the Federal Prior to 1971, the only means of mail. government. obtaining such a national search was by application to the FBI, The CCH system continued Section 4: The proposed III which, under congressional throughout the 1970s even though compact, explains the major authorization dating back to 1924, participation by the States was provisions of a proposed maintains criminal record files poor, due primarily to objections to interstate compact that would containing fingerprints and arrest the cost and difficulty of support a fully implemented III and disposition information maintaining duplicate files on State system. offenders at both the State and Federal levels. The FBI’s centralized files were continued during this period and automation of them began in 1974. 121 Statutes Report, p. 1.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 49 Most State officials preferred the Section 1: Maintenance In most States, two arrest development of a “decentralized” and use of current fingerprint cards are submitted to national criminal history record FBI files the State repository; the repository system; that is, a system that would then sends one card to the FBI. In not entail the continuance of a States participating in this “single- This section discusses how the FBI duplicative national repository of source submission” program, the maintains fingerprints and criminal criminal records, but instead would FBI will not accept fingerprint history records, and the uses that undertake to strengthen the State submissions directly from arresting are made of these files. This repositories and provide the means agencies. This approach ensures discussion includes: of tying them together into a viable that the repositories will not be interstate system. ¥ Current practices for submission bypassed at the critical arrest and storage of fingerprint and fingerprint reporting stage. Prior to the 1970s, it was generally criminal history data; conceded that most of the existing ¥ The authorized users of the FBI In States that have not implemented State repositories lacked the files, whether criminal justice or single-source submission, technology and the policy and noncriminal justice, and the data fingerprint cards may be submitted organizational structure necessary they are entitled to receive; and directly to the FBI by State and for effective participation in such a ¥ How terminal access to the FBI local law enforcement agencies. program. By the end of that decade, files is provided to users. The FBI thus has records of some however, substantial progress had State offenses that were not been made in improving existing Current practice reported to the State repositories, State repositories, establishing primarily records established before repositories in States that lacked Under the authority of Title 28, single-source fingerprint reporting them, and providing these agencies Section 534 of the United States was implemented or before the with the technology, organizational Code, the FBI currently maintains State repositories began automating capability and policy structures fingerprints and criminal history records in the past 20 years. necessary for the creation of a records for persons arrested for decentralized national criminal Federal offenses and also maintains —Disposition submissions history program based on shared State offender records that, to a responsibilities and mutual great extent, duplicate the records The FBI accepts and records final commitments. of the State repositories. disposition and correctional information for these arrests. Both Recognizing this progress, in 1978 —Fingerprint submissions fingerprint card submission and the U.S. Department of Justice and disposition reporting to the FBI are State officials approved the concept For their mutual benefit, State and voluntary, however, and the of the Interstate Identification Index local arresting agencies throughout incidence and quality of reporting (III), and the FBI and selected the country are encouraged to varies from State to State. Arrest States began phased testing and submit arrest fingerprint cards to reporting to the FBI is thought to be implementation of the concept in the FBI for all “criterion offenses,” good in most States, but is known 1980. that is, all felonies and all to be poor in a few States. misdemeanors except designated nonserious ones.

Page 50 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Disposition reporting to the FBI Authorized users of data These agencies receive the FBI’s from most States is incomplete, complete criminal history on perhaps averaging about 50 The criminal history records offenders with all reported arrests percent.122 By comparison, felony maintained by the FBI are available regardless of whether there is a trial court disposition reporting to for criminal justice use and some disposition for each arrest notation the State repositories is estimated to noncriminal justice purposes. The and regardless of the nature of be somewhat higher, with reporting FBI is authorized by law124 to recorded dispositions. It should be in 10 States at 95 percent or provide criminal record services to noted that information about State higher.123 the following major categories of offenses, when submitted to the users: FBI and incorporated into the FBI’s As of April 1, 1993, the FBI was (1) Federal and State criminal files, has been interpreted to be obtaining disposition information justice agencies for criminal Federal information subject to the from 10 State repositories by justice purposes, including Federal Privacy Act and other computer tape, which results in the screening of applicants Federal standards that provide for more complete and timely for criminal justice the disseminations outlined 125 reporting. Seven additional States employment; above. are testing computer software to (2) Federal noncriminal justice produce automated disposition Pursuant to these standards, some agencies for official purposes reports. noncriminal justice agencies in authorized by Federal statute some States are able to receive —Extent of automation or executive order, such as State offender information from national security purposes FBI files that they could not obtain Approximately 17.1 million of the and background screening of directly from repositories in States FBI’s criminal history records were Federal employees; that have laws regulating fully automated (identification and (3) Federally chartered or insured noncriminal justice use which are charge/disposition information) at banks and authorized more restrictive than the Federal the beginning of 1993 and the segments of the securities and standard. Conversely, in States with Bureau maintains an automated commodities industries, for more open laws, some noncriminal index to an additional 8.3 million employment screening; and justice agencies can obtain State manual records. Also, there are (4) State and local governmental records but are denied access to about 3 million manual records agencies for licensing and FBI data. with a manual index. employment purposes if authorized by a State statute approved by the U.S. Attorney General.

124 28 U.S.C. ¤ 534; PL 99-169, as amended by PL 99-569 and PL 101- 246, 5 U.S. C. ¤ 9101; Exec. Order 10450; PL 91-452; PL 101-647; PL 92- 125 When a Federal agency receives 544, 86 Stat. 1115; PL 100-413, 102 “records” from a State agency, these Stat. 1101; PL 94-29, as amended by records become Federal records for 122 Reported by officials of the PL 100-181, 15 U.S.C. ¤ 78q(f)(2); PL purposes of Federal law. Records FBI’s Criminal Justice Information 97-444, 7 U.S. C. ¤¤ 12a, 21(b)(4)(e); Disposal Act, 44 U.S.C. ¤ 3301; Services Division as a result of analysis PL 99-399, 42 U.S.C. ¤ 2169; PL 101- Forsham v. Harris, 445 U.S. 169, 185 of court disposition reporting as of 604, 49 U.S.C. App. ¤ 1357(g); 28 CFR (1980); Kissinger v. Reporters March 1993. 0.85(b); U.S. Dept. of Justice Order Committee for Freedom of the Press, 123 1992 Survey, Table 8. 556-73, 28CFR 16.30-16.34. 445 U.S. 136, 151-52 (1980).

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 51 Terminal access to FBI files Section 2: The Interstate The Interstate Identification Index Identification Index and the National Fingerprint File —Criminal justice inquiries provide the means of conducting This section provides a detailed national criminal record searches Terminal access for authorized look at the Interstate Identification (both name searches and name searches of the FBI’s files, Index, and the uses made of it for fingerprint-based searches) and and for obtaining automated criminal justice and noncriminal “pointing” the inquiring agency to records, is provided for criminal justice purposes. the FBI and/or any participating justice purposes to criminal justice State repository that maintains a agencies nationwide by means of Background criminal record on the subject. the NCIC telecommunications Inquiring agencies are then able to network. obtain the records directly from the The Interstate Identification Index indicated State or Federal files by (III) system is a decentralized Criminal justice agencies may also means of the NCIC network or the “index-pointer” system that obtain searches and record National Law Enforcement ultimately will be used for all responses by submitting arrest Telecommunications System interstate and Federal-State fingerprints to the FBI. As pointed (NLETS), a system maintained by purposes, replacing the existing out earlier, arresting agencies the States. typically send two sets of national repository system described in Section 1 of this fingerprints to their State It is important to emphasize that the chapter. Under the III concept, repository. The repository searches III system, when fully when it is fully implemented, the its files and returns a response to implemented, will be a FBI will no longer maintain the agency. If the arrest is for a decentralized system that will duplicate criminal history files for criterion offense, the repository supplant the FBI’s recordkeeping State offenders.126 Rather the FBI sends the second set of fingerprints responsibility for State offenders by will maintain: to the FBI for a search of its making the State repositories national files and subsequent ¥ Federal offender records, primarily responsible for record retention. containing arrest and disposition maintenance and dissemination. information pertaining to State agencies will no longer —Noncriminal justice persons arrested for Federal submit fingerprint cards and inquiries offenses; disposition information to the FBI ¥ The Interstate Identification for all criterion arrests, as they now Access to FBI files for noncriminal Index, containing names and do. Rather they will channel justice purposes, such as State identifying information for all fingerprints through their State agency licensing and employment State and Federal offenders in repositories and the repositories screening authorized by State law, the system; and will submit only “first-arrest” 127 is not provided by means of ¥ The National Fingerprint File fingerprint cards to the FBI, for terminal name search. Such (NFF), containing fingerprints of applications require the submission Federal offenders and a single of the applicant subject’s set of fingerprints for each fingerprints. Access requests by indexed State offender from State agencies under approved State each State in which the person statutes are submitted through the has been arrested. State repositories and, upon request, responses are returned to the repositories, which screen the responses, if necessary, pursuant to State dissemination laws and practices. Applications from Federal agencies, banks, and securities and commodities firms are channeled directly to the FBI. 126 The FBI will continue to 127 The repositories will forward maintain some older State offender fingerprints only for persons that they records that the States have not cannot identify as having a prior arrest automated. record in the State.

Page 52 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report inclusion in the NFF and for updating the III. State repositories will not send “second and subsequent” arrest fingerprints to the FBI, nor will any charge or disposition information for any arrests be sent. Thus, the State repositories will become the only sources of State criminal history records for these arrests — for both criminal justice and noncriminal justice purposes. (See Figure 4, which illustrates the reporting and maintenance of records in a decentralized III system.)

Use of III for criminal justice purposes

The III system has been partially implemented through a series of tests and operational phases that began in 1980. Essentially, the system is utilized for criminal justice purposes only. (Ongoing tests of noncriminal justice use of the system are described later in this section.) Access for name searches and record requests for criminal justice purposes is provided to criminal justice agencies nationwide by means of the NCIC network. The NLETS network is used by the States for transmitting record responses. (Figure 5 shows, in somewhat simplified form, how III record requests and record responses are routed for criminal justice purposes.)

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 53 A

Fingerprint Automated Criminal Automated/Manual Arresting Cards Fingerprint Fingerprint and Custodial Criminal Records Agencies Cards Fingerprint Records Ident. Data Ident. and Charge Data Automated/Manual Automated/Manual Disposition Criminal Justice Case Criminal III Index Reports Charge Data Agencies Disposition History Reports Records •Police Automated NON-NFF •Prosecutors Criminal •Courts History •Corrections All “reportable”* All “criterion”* Records •Others arrests and NON-NFF arrests and corresponding FBI corresponding STATE REPOSITORY dispositions dispositions

*Required to be reported by State law *Felony arrests and misdemeanor arrests except those for nonserious offenses

B Criminal Automated Fingerprint Arresting Criminal Automated/Manual National Fingerprint Cards and Custodial Fingerprint Fingerprint Cards Agencies Records File Ident. Data Ident. and Charge Data

Criminal Justice Case III Index

NFF Automated Agencies Disposition Ident. Data Criminal Reports Updates •Police History Automated •Prosecutors Records Criminal •Courts History •Corrections All “reportable”* FIRST ARRESTS Records •Others NFF ONLY arrests and FBI corresponding STATE REPOSITORY for “criterion”* dispositions offenses

*Required to be reported by State law *Felony arrests and misdemeanor arrests except those for nonserious offenses

Figure 4: Reporting and Maintenance of Records in a Decentralized III System Figure 4: Reporting and Maintenance of Records in a Decentralized III System

Figure 4A shows present procedures for the reporting of arrest and custodial fingerprints and case disposition data to the FBI by State repositories that are not participating in the decentralization phase of the III system (referred to as non-NFF repositories). This includes repositories that are not participating at all in III, as well as repositories that are participating in III as record providers for criminal justice purposes only. Since these repositories are not providing records from their files to all Federal and out- of-state noncriminal justice agencies authorized to obtain national record searches, criminal justice agencies in these States continue to submit fingerprints and charge/disposition information to the FBI for all arrests for criterion offenses. This is done in order that the FBI may provide record services (Federal offender and State offender records) to authorized noncriminal justice users.

Figure 4B shows how reporting and record maintenance will work when State repositories begin to participate in the decentralization phase of III implementation (often referred to as implementation of the National Fingerprint File). These repositories (referred to as NFF repositories) will assume an obligation to provide interstate record services to all authorized III users for both criminal justice and noncriminal justice purposes. Thus, there will be no need for these States to continue submitting fingerprints and criminal history data to the FBI for all criterion arrests. They will submit fingerprint cards only for the first arrest of an individual for a criterion offense within each state. This will enable the FBI to include the record subject in the III index (and set a “pointer” to the submitting State), and to include the subject’s fingerprints in the NFF, so as to be able to direct inquiring agencies to the full record(s) for the individual maintained only at the State level. NFF repositories will submit revised subject identification information, as necessary, to keep the III index up-to-date. Fingerprint images and subject identification data may in some cases be transmitted to the FBI by electronic means.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 55 Criminal justice agencies throughout the III RECORD REQUEST ROUTE: CRIMINAL JUSTICE PURPOSE country can obtain criminal history records III Participating State Repositories through the III system. Record request messages are transmitted to the State repository by means of the State telecommunications Local Criminal State A State B network. The Justice Agency repository forwards the message to the III computer by means of the NCIC network. The III computer switches the messages to State repositories that maintain records on the FBI III Computer inquiry subject and/or to the FBI if the subject State Repository has a Federal record or a record in one or more States not participating in III. FBI Automated III RECORD RESPONSE ROUTE: CRIMINAL JUSTICE PURPOSE Records

III Participating State Repositories Records supplied from the FBI’s automated files are returned to the inquiring State repository via the NCIC network. Local Criminal State A State B Participating State repositories utilize the Justice Agency via NLETS NLETS network to transmit record responses. The receiving State repository assembles multistate record components, if State Repository via NCIC necessary, and transmits a response to the requesting agency. The entire process usually takes less than a minute.

FBI Automated Records

Figure 5: III Record Requests and Responses: Criminal Justice Purposes As of August 8, 1993, 25 State —Revision of State laws repositories128 had begun Because the III system is not being and policies necessary participating in the III system as used for handling interstate direct record providers, which noncriminal justice requests, except In order to participate fully in the means that they are responding to on a limited test basis, such III system, most of the States will criminal justice requests for their requests continue to be handled by have to make changes in their laws III-indexed records from local, the FBI. For this reason, the FBI’s and policies governing the State and Federal criminal justice files of State offenders must dissemination of criminal history agencies nationwide. Numerous continue to be maintained and must records. other State repositories plan to be kept up-to-date. begin participating as record While all States permit virtually providers within the next few years Criminal justice agencies in all of unrestricted access to all types of and all of the other States currently the States, including those States criminal history records for have plans for their repositories to whose repositories are participating criminal justice purposes, State join III at some future time. In the in the III system as record providers laws and policies governing access meantime, the FBI continues to for criminal justice purposes only, and use for noncriminal justice provide the records of are continuing to submit arrest and purposes are extremely diverse, nonparticipating States, as disposition information to the FBI ranging from essentially “open described earlier, and to provide for all criterion arrests. Such record” access in a few States to some older State records that submissions must continue until, on very restrictive access rules in a participating States have not a state-by-State basis, the State few States, especially concerning automated. repositories are able to assume the records of arrests without recorded responsibility of providing record dispositions or records of cases that As of August 1, 1993, the III responses for both criminal justice resulted in favorable outcomes for system provided access to and noncriminal justice purposes the accused person. The other 21,182,040 automated records. Of and there are assurances of States fall somewhere in between, these, 11,801,279 records were continued service into the future. with sometimes complex statutory maintained by the participating Only then can decentralization of and regulatory approaches that State repositories and 9,380,761 the FBI’s files be fully differ greatly as to the types of were maintained by the FBI. About implemented. noncriminal justice agencies that 1,756,000 inquiry transactions are may have access to particular types processed each month. These of records for particular inquiries are for criminal justice purposes.129 purposes, including criminal investigations. On the average, a positive response is provided for one out of three inquiries. Inquiry transactions are processed by the III computer within five seconds. More than 478,000 criminal histories are provided monthly through the III system.

Use of III for noncriminal justice purposes

128 The 25 States are Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington and Wyoming. 129 1992 Compendium, pp. 7-11.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 57 This diversity and complexity of Since a fundamental goal of the —Pilot test underway State laws was viewed from the system is to continue existing levels beginning as a serious obstacle to of service to current FBI users, the A pilot project to test the use of the developing and implementing an III system concept adopts the III system for handling noncriminal effective interstate system, access and dissemination rules justice requests is currently being especially an “index pointer” type currently applicable to the FBI. undertaken by the FBI and the State of system. Design of a national Under this approach, full repositories in Florida and North index that could take into account participation in the III system Carolina. Since the laws of these the frequently amended would require State repositories to States permit record service to all dissemination laws and policies of provide full criminal history record current FBI users, their repositories the 50 States was seen as a difficult, information130 in response to out- were able to undertake an if not impossible, technical of-state record requests for: obligation to provide record problem. Even if technical ¥ Criminal justice purposes; responses for all in-state and out- difficulties could be overcome, a of-state requests. On this basis, Noncriminal justice purposes national system designed merely to ¥ these States and the FBI are testing authorized by Federal laws and provide noncriminal justice the decentralization component of regulations — primarily Federal requestors with whatever limited the III system. The States are agency employment, national information the various States will submitting only first-arrest security purposes, military make available under current laws fingerprints to the FBI and are not recruiting, and employment in and policies would not provide the submitting any disposition the banking and securities/ same overall level of service (for information. The test in Florida commodities industries; and example, the full record) that the began on April 21, 1991, and many Federal and State agencies ¥ Noncriminal justice purposes evaluation of the progress of the now obtain from the FBI under the authorized by approved State test has been favorable. The test in Federal access standards mentioned statutes — primarily State North Carolina began on February previously. governmental licensing and 15, 1993, in order to more fully employment. assess III concept requirements. —Uniform dissemination Oregon is scheduled to begin standard proposed States would continue to enforce participating in the test in the near their own dissemination laws future. (Figure 6 shows how For these reasons, the III system governing the availability of noncriminal justice record requests concept proposes a uniform criminal history records to and record responses will be standard for interstate noncriminal nonfederal agencies located within handled in a decentralized III justice access and dissemination their State borders. However, system.) with which all participating State access requests by Federal agencies repositories would comply. and out-of-state agencies would be governed by the uniform III access rules outlined above. State repositories that do not presently have broad enough legal authority under their State laws to comply with that standard would need to seek appropriate modifications by statutory amendment, policy changes or other actions, such as ratification of the proposed interstate/Federal-State compact discussed in Section 4 of this chapter.

130 The State repositories may withhold “sealed” information.

Page 58 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Section 3: III system Benefits of III participation impact Whether a State repository is a full Full implementation of the III participant or participates only as a system will offer significant record provider for criminal justice benefits to criminal justice purposes, participation in the III practitioners and to noncriminal system affords cost-saving benefits. justice agencies that obtain records The computer interface with III through the system. Since studies provides automatic updating of and audits have indicated that State files to add newly-assigned records maintained at the State FBI numbers, eliminating the level sometimes are more complete mailing of forms and the manual and timely than comparable State matching and data entry previously offender records maintained by the performed by State personnel. The FBI, the ability to obtain records repositories also are able to set directly from the State repositories single-state/multistate flags in their is expected to result in an files indicating whether their improvement in the quality of records on particular offenders are available information. Further data complete or whether there are quality improvements will result additional data available from other from computer matching of State States or the FBI. and Federal records and the resolution of identified In addition, an increase in system discrepancies. security will result from III requirements for written This section, in addressing the agreements with all user agencies impact of the III system, describes concerning security measures the following: designed to prevent unauthorized access to or use of system data. ¥ Benefits of III participation; These measures include: ¥ Benefits of NFF participation; ¥ Physical and system security; ¥ Burdens of III participation; and ¥ Transaction logging; ¥ Expected overall impact. ¥ Organizational/administrative requirements; and ¥ Sanctions for noncompliance.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 59 Fingerprint Mail Card FBI

FBI automated files of Federal offenders and State offenders Non-ident. Record from non-NFF Response States

III Index via NCIC

State via NCIC Ident. Record Request Repository Notification via NLETS (via NCIC)

via NLETS Mail Record Response

Fingerprint Record Card Response

NFF State A

Record Response Mail

Authorized State Agency

NFF State B

Figure 6: III Record Request and Response Processing for Noncriminal Justice Purposes Benefits of NFF participation Figure 6: III Record Request and Response Processing for Noncriminal Justice Purposes For repositories that participate in the National Fingerprint File A State noncriminal justice agency authorized by law to obtain a III record (providing records in response to search must submit the search subject’s fingerprints to its State repository. III requests for both criminal justice If the repository positively identifies the subject as having an in-state and noncriminal justice purposes), criminal record (“Ident.”), its files will contain an FBI number for the there will be additional benefits — subject which can be used to access III to determine whether the subject for these repositories and the FBI. also has a Federal record or a record in another State. If the repository is a III participant, its files will contain “flags” indicating whether the subject —Duplicate files eliminated has a record in another State (or a Federal record), making III inquiries unnecessary if the subject is not a “multistate” offender. If the subject does Maintenance of duplicate State and have an out-of-state record, the III computer automatically transmits record Federal files for offenders from request notifications to any NFF State repository maintaining a record on these States will be discontinued. the subject and/or to the FBI if the subject has a Federal record or a record The State repositories will be in a State not participating in the NFF. These repositories return full-record relieved of the burden of submitting responses to the originating State repository, which screens the records and second and subsequent arrest forwards to the requesting noncriminal justice agency all information that fingerprints and charge/disposition can be released under State law. information to the FBI, and the FBI will be relieved of the burden of If the State repository cannot identify the subject in its files (“Non-Ident.”), maintaining State offender files for it forwards the fingerprint card to the FBI for processing. If the FBI these States. This may free positively identifies the subject as having a Federal record or a record in a personnel and resources that can be non-NFF State, it provides these records from its automated files. If the applied to other programs to further subject has a record in one or more NFF States, those repositories are improve Federal and State criminal automatically notified to provide the records directly to the originating State record files. The FBI intends to repository. reinvest cost savings resulting from III implementation in new If the subject cannot be identified at the State or Federal level, an technology to improve the speed appropriate no-record response is returned to the requesting agency. and accuracy of fingerprint processing and to reduce record Federal noncriminal justice agencies submit fingerprints directly to the FBI, response times. which processes the requests essentially as described above, assembles record components, as necessary, including obtaining records from NFF —Uniform dissemination States, as appropriate, and provides an appropriate record response to the standard requesting Federal agency. Full implementation of the III system will establish a single uniform standard governing the interstate exchange of criminal history record information for purposes of noncriminal justice dissemination. This standard will replace the varied and sometimes conflicting standards set out in current Federal and State laws. At the same time, however, State repositories receiving full criminal history records from other State repositories or the FBI will be able

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 61 to screen these records and delete Expected overall impact When decentralization is any information that cannot be accomplished131 and State criminal released for intrastate purposes On balance, full implementation of justice agencies cease submitting under their own dissemination the III system, including charge and disposition information laws. implementation of the NFF, is to the FBI, the FBI’s files of State expected to result in significant offenders, which now provide the —Faster response times improvements in the quality of the basis for national criminal record information available through the searches, will be essentially Some noncriminal justice users will system, increased system security eliminated. The participating State enjoy faster response times, since and an overall long-term reduction repositories will become the only the repositories in their States will of costs for both the FBI and the sources of complete and up-to-date receive automated record responses State repositories. information on State offenders and from the FBI rather than the mailed some way must be found to ensure responses that are now provided. that they will continue to make Section 4: The proposed appropriate information available to Burdens of III participation III compact authorized noncriminal justice users in other States and to There are some new burdens to the This section discusses a proposed authorized Federal agencies. In States associated with participation interstate and Federal-State addition, there is a need for the in the III system. Most of the States compact that would implement the establishment of a policymaking that are not now participating will III system, including a look at: council to provide policy direction need to upgrade the technical for the use of the III system for capability of their repositories in ¥ Why such a compact is noncriminal justice purposes. order for them to be able to necessary; interface with III and achieve ¥ The emergence of the III Emergence of the III compact required system support levels. compact concept; and This work is in progress in most of ¥ The major provisions of the Although these goals could these States. In addition, there are proposed III compact. possibly be realized through the some modest start-up costs for enactment of Federal legislation, system software and other changes Background uniform State laws or independent necessary for the basic III interface. State legislative action, there has Full participation in the III system been a strong consensus almost Once full participation begins, the will require most of the States to since the emergence of the III repositories assume increased modify their existing laws and concept that favors the use of an responsibilities for providing policies governing the availability interstate/Federal-State compact to records in response to out-of-state of criminal history records for implement the system. inquiries that are now serviced by noncriminal justice purposes, in the FBI — both criminal justice and order to be able to meet the noncriminal justice inquiries. proposed interstate standard on However, since many criminal record availability. In addition, justice responses are already Federal and State officials handled electronically and since the recognize a need for the FBI and volume of noncriminal justice the participating State repositories record responses is low, these new to be formally committed to long- burdens should not be significant in term participation in a decentralized States that have efficient systems. system.

131 Operationally, decentralization occurs for a State when it agrees to abide by the rules of the National Fingerprint File as set out in the III compact.

Page 62 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report —Compact advantages October 29, 1992, the Attorney ¥ Release and use of information General approved this compact obtained through the system for The primary advantages of a proposal and recommended its use noncriminal justice purposes compact are as follows: as the base document for would be governed by the laws It must be ratified in identical ratification by the States and the of the receiving States and the ¥ 132 form by all parties and, after Federal government. receiving repositories would be ratification, no party can required to screen record unilaterally amend it. Compact provisions responses and delete any information that cannot legally Ratifying parties can withdraw ¥ Major provisions of the proposed be released within the State; and from the compact only through “Interstate and Federal-State the same formal action used for ¥ The compact would establish a Compact on the Exchange of ratification, a feature that compact council, comprised of Criminal History Records for Federal and State officials and provides some assurance of 133 Noncriminal Justice Purposes” other members representing user long-term participation by include the following: ratifying parties. interests, to establish operating ¥ The compact would bind the FBI policies for noncriminal justice Since compacts take precedence ¥ and ratifying States to uses of the III system. over conflicting State or Federal participate in the noncriminal laws and since the compact justice access program of III in The proposed compact is expected authorizes the State repositories accordance with the compact to be the subject of congressional to provide record responses for and established system policies; hearings during late 1993 or early all authorized III purposes, 1994.134 Ratification action in ratification of the compact ¥ Authorized users would be the same as those currently some States may also begin during would have the effect of 1994. Ratification of the compact providing the repositories with authorized to obtain records from the FBI’s files; has not yet been made a condition needed interstate record of State participation in III, but it is Participating State repositories dissemination authority in those ¥ expected that all participating would be authorized and cases where such authority is States will ratify the compact, required to make all unsealed now lacking under State law. since, in most States, it will provide criminal history records record dissemination authority now —Compact development available in response to lacking under State laws. status authorized noncriminal justice requests; Work on a compact to implement ¥ All noncriminal justice access to the III system has been underway the system would be through the for over five years, with input from FBI and the State repositories Federal and State officials and from and would be based upon numerous organizations fingerprint identification of representing State and Federal record subjects to ensure interests. On June 4, 1992, the FBI positive identification; Director approved a draft compact recommended by the NCIC Advisory Policy Board and endorsed by SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice 132 The proposed compact is Information and Statistics. On included in this document as Appendix 21. 134 The Congress must ratify the 133 The proposed compact governs compact to authorize Federal only the use of the III system for participation, that is, participation by noncriminal justice purposes. Use of the FBI. In addition, under Article I of the system for criminal justice the Constitution, the Congress must purposes, which has not been formally consent to entry into the controversial or problematic, is to be compact by the States, since the governed by written agreements among compact deals with subjects of Federal III parties. interest.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 63 Page 64 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Chapter VI: Federal initiatives and criminal history records

Background dissemination of criminal history This chapter looks at major record information by State and national initiatives that will The Federal government plays a local agencies. affect how criminal history principal role in criminal history records are maintained and record information policies and In the past few years, the Federal used. practices. As described in Chapter government has launched several V, the FBI’s files of fingerprints new initiatives that are also having Section 1: FBI system and criminal history records are and a material effect on how criminal upgrades, discusses the FBI’s will continue to be a critical part of history records are maintained and comprehensive program to the Nation’s criminal history record used at the local, State and Federal upgrade its identification and system. In addition, Federal levels. This chapter looks at the information services. noncriminal justice agencies, most important of these initiatives. principally the military services and Section 2: Federal database Federal intelligence agencies, are Section 1: FBI system for identifying felons, the largest consumers of criminal upgrades describes efforts to develop a history record information. national database that would The FBI currently is well along in a identify felons who attempt to The Federal justice assistance grant comprehensive program to upgrade purchase firearms. programs also contribute to the and revitalize its identification and Federal government’s central role information services capabilities. Section 3: Federal grant in the Nation’s criminal history programs and related record system. The U.S. This section looks at these FBI initiatives, identifies criminal Department of Justice, through the initiatives: history record grant programs Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), administered by the U.S. the Bureau of Justice Assistance ¥ IAFIS; Department of Justice, as well (BJA) and other agencies of the ¥ The new CJIS Division; as national initiatives that Office of Justice Programs (OJP), ¥ NCIC 2000; and involve criminal history annually provides millions of ¥ Additional short-term goals. records. dollars in grants to State and local agencies for support and IAFIS Section 4: The Brady Bill, enhancement of criminal history reviews the status and record systems and for A key part of this program, the provisions of the Brady improvement of criminal history Integrated Automated Fingerprint Handgun Violence Protection record data quality. Identification System (IAFIS), was Act of 1993, which would briefly described in Chapter IV. impose a waiting period for all In addition, the Congress has IAFIS will include FBI facilities for handgun purchases. enacted broad statutory automated storage and search of requirements relating to criminal arrest fingerprints, as well as history records and data quality telecommunication facilities for the applicable to State and local exchange of fingerprint images and agencies receiving Federal grants; related data with State and the U.S. Department of Justice, identification bureaus. It will originally through its Law include a capability for State Enforcement Assistance identification bureaus to submit Administration and, after its demise electronic arrest fingerprints, in 1979, through BJS and BJA, has receiving in return an FBI issued regulations governing the determination of identification or collection, storage and

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 65 nonidentification, and also a be able to handle graphic firearms.138 Recognizing that the capability for State identification information in a paperless imaging Federal government lacked any bureaus to search the FBI files, format. This graphic information effective program for checking the receiving in return fingerprint will include mug shots, tattoos and eligibility of a firearms purchaser, images of likely identification signatures of offenders.136 the Congress, in the Anti-Drug candidates for a State determination Abuse Act of 1988, directed the of identification or Short-term goals Attorney General to “develop a nonidentification. All system for the immediate and communication of fingerprint In connection with these upgrade accurate identification of felons image data will be conducted using initiatives, the FBI has announced who attempt to purchase a new national standard format, the following short-term goals that firearms.”139 The statute further which can also be adopted by the are relevant to its criminal history directed that the Attorney General: States to link State identification record improvement program: (1) “shall report to the Congress bureaus with local arrest booking ¥ To revitalize the identification a description of the system agencies. process; and a plan (including cost ¥ To develop/deploy NCIC 2000; analysis of the proposed CJIS Division system) for implementation To develop a user participation ¥ of the system . . . ”; and Another key part of the FBI’s plan; (2) “shall begin implementation modernization program is the To develop data quality auditing ¥ of the system 30 days after relocation of its new Criminal standards and policies; the report to the Congress.” Justice Information Services (CJIS) ¥ To create a public awareness Division from FBI headquarters in program; and In response to this directive, the Washington, D.C., to expanded and Attorney General appointed a Task improved facilities in Clarksburg, ¥ To develop and implement a Force on Felon Identification in West Virginia. The move, which is strategy for assisting States and Firearms Sales to identify options expected to begin in 1995, is the other users in creating linkages for the development of a felon most costly item on the Nation’s to the FBI’s automated 137 identification system. The task criminal record improvement systems. force’s final report, issued in agenda — estimated at about $600 October 1989, identified several million in capital investment over options for systems to identify the next four years, including $200 Section 2: Federal felons who attempt to purchase million for the new building in database for identifying firearms, but made no specific West Virginia and $400 million for felons recommendations.140 its automated equipment and systems.135 Background

NCIC 2000 Federal law prohibits persons convicted of felony offenses and Another FBI initiative, called individuals who fall into certain “NCIC 2000,” will upgrade the other categories from purchasing National Crime Information Center’s telecommunications system and its hardware to permit the paperless exchange of information. In addition, NCIC will

136 Jennifer Jones, “FBI’s 135 Christensen Merges Criminal ID U.S. Congress, Office of 138 Technology Assessment, The FBI Systems” Federal Computer Week 18 U.S.C. ¤ 922(g)(1); and Fingerprint Identification Automation (Feb. 1, 1993) p. 29. ¤6213(c). 139 Program: Issues and Options, 137 William S. Sessions, “Criminal Section 6213 of the Anti-Drug Background Paper, OTA-BP-TCT-84 Justice Information Services: Gearing Abuse Act of 1988, P.L. 100-690, 102 (Washington, D.C.: Government Up For the Future,” FBI Law Enforce Stat. 4181 (1988). Printing Office, November 1991) p. 9. ment Bulletin (February 1993) p. 3. 140 Firearms Report.

Page 66 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report The Attorney General forwarded The specific elements of the system The report presenting the Attorney his report to the Congress on would include an immediate General’s program notes that, “It is November 20, 1989.141 The report telephone check of automated anticipated that as technological transmitted the Task Force’s final criminal history records by gun advances are made and as technical report and recommended a four- dealers through a designated law and policy issues are resolved, part program to enhance efforts to enforcement agency and a alternative methods for identifying stop firearms sales to felons. secondary fingerprint-based gun purchasers, for transmitting the verification procedure for all data, and for protecting record This section looks at this four-part individuals who are rejected after system integrity will be system, including: the initial telephone check.143 considered.”145 ¥ Telephone checks; The gun dealer would require the Felon database Felon database; ¥ prospective purchaser to show two ¥ Enhancement of the FBI’s pieces of identification, at least one The second part of the Attorney record system; and of which would be required to have General’s program directs the FBI ¥ Monitoring advances in a current photograph. The gun to establish a complete and biometric technology. dealer would telephone the automated database of felons who designated State law enforcement are prohibited from purchasing Telephone checks agency using an identification code firearms. to verify his identity. The State law The Attorney General’s first enforcement agency would use As a part of this initiative, the recommendation, and the existing telecommunications Attorney General directed the FBI, underpinning for the plan for a systems to check the master name in concert with BJS, to issue national program to identify felons index of the State repository and, if voluntary standards for State and who attempt to purchase firearms, necessary, the Interstate local criminal justice agencies with is establishment of a system for Identification Index, both of which respect to improvements in their point-of-sale approval of firearms presumably would be flagged to criminal history record systems. purchasers through telephone indicate individuals who have The Attorney General also directed checks.142 felony conviction records that BJA, through BJS, provide $9 maintained at the State or Federal million in grant funds in each of the This program is envisioned as a level. The three fiscal years 1990 through cooperative, Federal/State system would also access State and Federal 1992, to be made available to the that requires gun dealers to obtain wanted persons files. States to improve criminal history telephone clearance from record information, to identify designated law enforcement The Attorney General’s program convicted felons, and to comply agencies at the time of firearm recognizes that, at least initially, with the FBI/BJS voluntary sales. some individuals who are qualified reporting standards.146 That grant to purchase firearms may be program and the voluntary designated by the system as reporting standards are discussed in unqualified because the databases Section 3 of this chapter. 141 Letter from Attorney General that will be accessed are not Richard Thornburgh to the Honorable accurate and complete and do not Thomas S. Foley, Speaker of the U.S. utilize effective systems for House of Representatives. See also, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of flagging felony convictions. In all Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice cases where the sale is denied, Statistics, Attorney General’s Program however, the applicant would have for Improving the Nation’s Criminal an opportunity to be fingerprinted History Records and Identifying Felons and to request a complete national Who Attempt to Purchase Firearms: background check.144 Overview (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, March, 1991). (Hereafter, Attorney General’s Program.) 145 Attorney General’s Program, p. 143 142 Attorney General’s Program, pp. Firearms Report, p. 26. 3. 1-3. 144 Ibid. 146 Ibid., p. 2.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 67 FBI record system the State repositories will have to The task force recognized, enhancement be able to provide accurate, moreover, that incomplete and complete and timely criminal inaccurate criminal history records The Attorney General directed the history record information. As frustrate not only attempts to FBI to enhance its own criminal discussed in more detail in Chapter identify felons, but also the ability history record systems in two ways: II, many States are not yet able to of judges to make informed bail (1) The Bureau was directed to do this. The Attorney General’s and pre-trial release decisions, the eliminate a backlog of program recognizes this ability of prosecutors to charge 149 fingerprint cards and shortcoming. repeat offenders under tough career dispositions submitted by criminal statutes, and the ability of State agencies that have not judges and probation officers to yet been processed and Section 3: Federal grant make intelligent sentencing and entered into the FBI system. programs and related post-confinement supervision decisions based on a defendant’s (2) The Bureau was directed to initiatives criminal history record. automate approximately 8.8 million manual criminal This section looks at: As noted, one of the major history records relating to ¥ The BJS Criminal History components of the Attorney individuals born after 1929, Record Improvement (CHRI) General’s plan to develop a but arrested for the first time Program; nationwide system to identify prior to July 1, 1974. In fiscal The BJA block grant set-aside felons who attempt to purchase year 1992, the FBI received ¥ program; firearms was the announcement that an additional appropriation of $9 million in discretionary grant $12.5 million and 487 ¥ A law requiring States to report funds authorized under the Anti- additional positions, alien convictions to the Drug Abuse Act of 1988 would be dedicated, at least in part, to Immigration and Naturalization allocated in each of the fiscal years these two initiatives.147 Service; and 1990, 1991 and 1992 for grants to ¥ Voluntary reporting standards the States for the specific purpose Advances in biometric promulgated by the FBI and of improving and updating their technology BJS. criminal history record information systems. The Attorney General The Attorney General also directed BJS criminal history record directed the Bureau of Justice the FBI to monitor advances in the improvement program Statistics to administer this $27 use of biometric technology,148 million Criminal History Record particularly the live-scanning of The task force appointed by the Improvement (CHRI) Program. fingerprints. Attorney General to identify options for the establishment of a The Attorney General’s program national felon identification system recognizes that in order to establish cited the lack of complete and an effective point-of-sale system accurate criminal history records, at for screening firearms purchasers, both the State and Federal levels, as one of the most significant impediments to the implementation of a point-of-sale system for the identification of felons who attempt to purchase firearms. 147 York Testimony. 148 Biometric identification technologies measure a unique and unchanging physiological or behavioral characteristic for purposes of personal identification. Examples include fingerprinting, DNA tissue typing, retinal scanning and signature 149 Attorney General’s Program, p. dynamics. 4.

Page 68 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report —Purposes for using grants Specifically, the BJS guidelines and establish a basis for authorized funds for the following evaluating the success of data 151 In its program announcement, BJS types of programs: quality improvement programs; identified five purposes for which ¥ Developing systems to identify Upgrading existing data systems Federal grants to the States could ¥ convicted felons through an to meet improved data quality be used: examination of the subject’s requirements by enhancing (1) Identifying individuals in automated or manual criminal hardware such as disks, printers State criminal history record history record and to include a and communications lines; and systems who have been felony “flag” in such records; Coordinating activities under convicted of felony offenses; ¥ ¥ Developing programs and this program with the (2) Improving the reporting of procedures to meet the FBI/BJS implementation of the disposition data to State voluntary reporting standards for Immigration and Naturalization repositories; identifying convicted felons; Service’s new criminal records (3) Increasing the automation of ¥ Designing systems to improve reporting program. State criminal history record reporting to the State central systems; repositories of all arrests, —Status of the program (4) Meeting the voluntary dispositions and other related FBI/BJS reporting standards criminal justice information; All $27 million in funding has been (discussed later in this ¥ Ensuring a higher degree of awarded under the BJS CHRI grant section); and criminal history automation by program, with every State plus the (5) Making felony conviction implementing State master name District of Columbia, American information readily accessible indexes, including the placement Samoa and the Northern Mariana to appropriate Federal and of felony conviction identifiers Islands participating (all are State agencies.150 in such indexes; referred to as “States” in this 152 ¥ Ensuring a higher degree of program review). Twenty-three —Data quality, system criminal history automation by of the participating States have improvement strategies establishing a computerized used at least some of their CHRI criminal history (CCH) record grant funds to establish a felony file BJS identified a number of proven system, increasing the number of or flag. Thirty-one of the data quality and system improve- individuals recorded in existing participating States have used the ment strategies and authorized systems, and improving the Federal funding to assist in States to use CHRI grant funds to quality and timeliness of automating their criminal history implement these strategies. criminal history records; systems. Of these, seven States that maintained essentially manual Developing procedures to ¥ systems prior to the grant program participate in the Interstate are using grant funds to implement Identification Index system; automated criminal history record ¥ Conducting baseline audits of systems.153 Four States have used criminal history record systems grant funds to implement live-scan to assess existing data quality fingerprinting and four have used levels, identify problem areas, the funds to install or upgrade AFIS systems.

150 U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance and 151 U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of 152 “Improvement of Criminal History Justice Statistics, Attorney General’s Status information provided by Record Information and Identification Program for Improving the Nation’s the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. of Convicted Felons: Notice of Criminal History Records: Bureau of Department of Justice. Program Announcement,” Federal Justice Statistics Implementation Status 153 American Samoa, District of Register 55 (May 23, 1990) pp. 21350- Report (Washington, D.C.: Government Columbia, Maine, New Mexico, 51. Printing Office, February 1992) pp. 2-3. Tennessee, Vermont and West Virginia.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 69 Nine States have used grant funds ¥ Completion of criminal histories formula grants, the States must to upgrade their repositories in to include final dispositions of allocate collectively a minimum of order to be able to participate in the all felony arrests; $21 million of their 1992 awards to Interstate Identification Index criminal history record Full automation of all criminal system. Twenty-five States have ¥ improvement efforts. history and fingerprint records; used grant funds to implement and electronic data sharing interfaces BJA’s guidelines provide that set- between the repository and ¥ Increasing the frequency and aside funds may be used for other reporting agencies or between quality of criminal history innovative purposes, such as the agencies. Thirty States have used records sent to the FBI. development of law enforcement grant funds to reduce backlogs of incident-based reporting systems. unprocessed disposition reports or —Fund guidelines The Director of BJA, at the request fingerprint cards, or to obtain of a State, may waive the five unreported arrests or dispositions. BJA, which administers the Byrne percent set-aside upon a finding, grant program, has issued supported by an independent audit, Fourteen States have used the guidelines for the expenditure of that the quality of the State’s Federal funding, in part at least, to the five-percent set-aside funds.155 criminal history records meets perform baseline audits or user The guidelines require every State standards set out in the guidelines. needs assessments. Nine States to take the following actions before have used grant funds to train spending any of its set-aside funds: Reporting alien convictions repository personnel or other ¥ Establish a criminal justice to INS criminal justice personnel. Ten records improvement task force; States used grant funds to ¥ Conduct an assessment of the The Immigration Act of 1990 standardize repository processing completeness and quality of requires that each State, as a procedures. criminal history records within condition of receiving formula the State; funds under the Edward Byrne The BJS CHRI grant program is Memorial law enforcement grant currently being evaluated in depth, ¥ Identify the reasons why program, must implement but it is already clear that, by criminal history records are procedures to provide the almost any measure, the program incomplete or inaccurate; and Immigration and Naturalization was an important success. ¥ Develop a records improvement Service (INS) with certified copies plan, which must be approved of criminal history records of aliens BJA block grant set-aside by BJA. who have been convicted of program violating the criminal laws of the The five-percent minimum set- State.156 The records must be The Congress also recognized the aside applies to funds appropriated provided to INS within 30 days of importance of improving the in fiscal year 1992 and all the date of conviction, and the State quality and completeness of State subsequent yearly formula grants may not charge a fee for such criminal history record systems by awarded under the Byrne grant records. including a provision in the Crime program. Given the fiscal year 1992 Control Act of 1990 that requires appropriation of approximately each State to set aside at least five $420 million for Byrne program percent of its Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement block grant monies for the improvement of criminal 155 154 U.S. Department of Justice, justice records. The Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of improvements may include the Justice Assistance, Guidance for the following: Improvement of Criminal Justice 156 Immigration and Nationality Act Records (Washington, D.C.: of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-649, 104 Stat. Government Printing Office, December 4978 (November 29, 1990), which 10, 1991) and Addendum to the amended ¤ 503(a) of the Omnibus 154 Crime Control Act of 1990, Pub. Guidance for the Improvement of Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of L. No. 101-647, 104 Stat. 4850 Criminal Justice Records (January 8, 1968 (codified as 42 U.S.C. ¤ (codified at 42 U.S.C. ¤ 3759(a)). 1992). 3753(a)(11)).

Page 70 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report The reporting provision in the 1990 In addition, BJA and INS have No one list of felons exists. In Immigration Act was designed to agreed to a two-phase addition, many of the criminal assist both INS and State and local implementation process. The first history records maintained by governments in dealing with phase targets serious offenders — law enforcement are either out criminal aliens. For INS, the that is, those sentenced to jail or of date or incomplete, or both. provision will assist in the prompt prison — and must be implemented Finally, current records often identification of aliens who have immediately. The second phase contain arrest information committed offenses for which they requires the reporting of conviction without notification of a final can be deported. INS estimates that records for all alien offenders. The disposition.158 more than 10 percent of the inmates States are required to collect and currently in State prisons are provide information about the After publication of a draft of the foreign-born. Once released from offender’s place of birth (and voluntary standards in March 1990 prison, these offenders may be , if available) to and review by the FBI’s Advisory deported, thus reducing the determine alien status. The INS, Policy Board, SEARCH and other likelihood of recidivist behavior in however, will retain responsibility interested organizations, the FBI this country. The States will also for investigating and verifying alien and BJS published the final save court and correctional status. “Recommended Voluntary supervision costs as a result of the Standards for Improving the deportation of alien offenders who FBI/BJS voluntary reporting Quality of Criminal History Record are convicted but not yet sentenced. standards Information” on February 13, 1991.159 The complete text of the In 1991, the Congress further The Attorney General’s standards is set out in Appendix 9. amended the Immigration Act to recommendations to the Congress reduce the reporting burden on regarding the development of a In brief, the standards: State and local law enforcement system for the identification of Set minimum requirements for agencies imposed by the 1990 Act. felons who attempt to purchase ¥ the content of arrest and As amended, the law now permits firearms included an announcement disposition reports submitted to the States to provide INS initially that the FBI, in conjunction with the repositories and to the FBI, with a notice of the conviction of a the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and establish minimum reporting suspected alien and to provide a would develop voluntary standards time frames; certified copy of the conviction to encourage the States to improve record later, if requested by disposition reporting and otherwise ¥ Provide for the maintenance of INS.157 The amendment also improve their criminal history fingerprints to support all permits the States to provide copies records. criminal history records of conviction records in the most maintained by the repositories convenient format to the States, In making this announcement the and for the submission of ranging from paper records held by Attorney General noted that the fingerprints to the FBI for the courts to electronic current state of criminal history inclusion in the national system; documentation maintained by the records among the States was not State central repositories. sufficiently advanced to facilitate the development of a national system for the immediate and accurate identification of felons: 158 Letter from Attorney General Richard Thornburgh to the Honorable Thomas S. Foley, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, November 157 H.R. 3049 — The Miscellaneous 20, 1989. and Technical Immigration and 159 U.S. Department of Justice, Naturalization Service Amendments Federal Bureau of Investigation and Act of 1991, amending ¤ 503 (a)(11) of Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe “Recommended Voluntary Standards Streets Act of 1968, as added by ¤ 507 for Improving the Quality of Criminal of the Immigration and Nationality Act History Information,” Federal Register of 1990 (December 18, 1991). 56 (February 13, 1991) p. 5849.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 71 ¥ Provide for the flagging of Section 4: The Brady Bill To help the States comply with felonies in criminal history these requirements, the Brady Bill databases and in disposition As this report is published, would establish a Federal grant reports submitted to the expectations are high that the 103rd program to be administered by BJS repositories and to the FBI; and Congress will pass and the to provide funding to the States for President will sign the Brady the following: Provide for annual audits of ¥ Handgun Violence Protection Act criminal history record systems (1) To create a computerized of 1993. That act would impose a and for security measures to criminal history record system seven-day waiting period for all protect criminal history record or improve an existing system; handgun purchases, during which a information from unauthorized criminal history record search could (2) To improve accessibility to the access, modification or be made to determine whether the NICS; and destruction. purchaser has a felony record. The (3) Upon establishment of the Act also would require the Attorney NICS, to assist the States in the The Commentary accompanying General to establish a National transmittal of criminal records the standards states that the intent is Instant Check System (NICS) to to the national system. to emphasize enhanced facilitate criminal history record recordkeeping for arrests and checks of firearms purchasers. It is expected that the system for convictions occurring within the Once the NICS is operational and the immediate and accurate five-year period prior to publication accessible within particular States, identification of felons who attempt of the standards and in the future. gun dealers would use the system to to purchase firearms recommended The Commentary notes that the initiate point-of-sale checks and the by the Attorney General to the standards are voluntary and that States could opt to dispense with Congress (discussed in Section 2 of adoption by criminal history record the waiting period requirement. this chapter), including the use of systems nationwide should be III and a point-of-sale telephone viewed as a goal and not as a The NICS would have two key check, would provide the basis for requirement. Nevertheless, the components: (1) on-line any national system established standards have been widely participation by the States and under the Brady legislation, if it accepted as representing a (2) improvement in State criminal becomes law. consensus of informed thought on history record systems to the point the subject of record maintenance where the States could meet an 80 and data quality, and compliance percent disposition reporting rate with the standards has been for arrests occurring within the incorporated as a major goal of State within the prior five years. As virtually all of the States’ criminal currently written, the system would history record improvement plans. have to be in place within 30 months of the enactment of the legislation and every State would have to meet the two substantive criteria set out above within five years.

Page 72 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 1

“Statutes making possession of a firearm by a convicted felon a criminal offense” Table 10 from Statutes Requiring the Use of Criminal History Record Information

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 1 ¥ Page 73 Statutes making possession of a firearm by a convicted felon a criminal offense

State Citation Prohibited If previously Penalty weapons* convicted of (or offense level) United States 18-922(g), 924 Firearm or ammunition Any felony** Up to 10 years or shipped in interstate $5,000 fine, or both commerce Alabama 13A-11-72, 84 Pistols Crime of violence or Up to five years attempt Alaska 11.61.200 Concealable firearm Any felony within five Class C felony years*** Arizona 13-3101, 3102 Firearm or lethal Violent felony or Class 6 felony weapon possession of deadly weapon Arkansas 5-73-103 Firearm Any felony Class D felony California P. C. ¤ 12021 Firearm Any felony Felony P. C. ¤ 12560 Firearm Felony with firearm Up to $1,000 fine or one year, or both Colorado 18-12-108 Firearm or deadly Burglary, arson or Class 5 felony; second weapon felony involving or subsequent offense is violence or deadly class 4 felony weapon within 10 years Connecticut 53a-217 Handgun or electric stun Capital felony or other Class D felony (must gun serious felony serve two years) Delaware 11-1448 Deadly weapon Felony, crime of Class E felony violence or certain drug offenses. District of Columbia 22-3203, 22-3215 Pistol Felony, pandering, Up to $1,000 fine or bawdy house or one year, or both. vagrancy Florida 790.23 Firearm or electric stun Felony Second degree felony gun Hawaii 134-7(b), (f) Firearm or ammunition Crime of violence or Class B felony drug trafficking Illinois 38-24-1.1 Firearm, ammunition or Any felony Class 3 felony other dangerous weapon Iowa 724.26 Firearm or offensive Any felony Aggravated weapon misdemeanor Kansas 21.4204 Firearm with barrel Any felony within five Class D felony under 12" years Kentucky 527.040 Handgun Any felony Class D felony Louisiana 14:95.1 Firearm Enumerated serious $3,000-5,000 fine and felonies within 10 years three to 10 years without probation or parole Maine 15-393 Firearm Felony or any offense Class C crime with dangerous weapon or firearm * The statutes uniformly criminalize owning or possessing specified, prohibited weapons. Some statutes also prohibit buying, concealing, transporting, carrying or using or intending to use such weapons. ** The Federal law defines “felony” as a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year. *** The statutes that apply only to crimes committed within specified time periods prior to the new offense usually calculate the time from the date of the earlier crime or the date of release from supervision resulting from any sentence imposed for the earlier crime, whichever is later.

Page 74 ¥ Appendix 1 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Statutes making possession of a firearm by a convicted felon a criminal offense

State Citation Prohibited If previously Penalty weapons* convicted of (or offense level) Maryland Art. 27 ¤ 445(c) Handgun Crime of violence, Misdemeanor. Up to weapon violation or $5,000 fine or three drug violation years, or both Art. 27-374, 375 Machine gun Crime of violence Felony. Up to 10 years Minnesota 624.713 Pistol Crime of violence Felony within 10 years or drug offense Mississippi 97-37-5 Deadly weapon Felony Felony. One to five years Missouri 571.070 Concealable firearm Dangerous felony Class C felony within five years Montana 45-8-316 Deadly weapon Any felony $1,000 fine or up to five years, or both Nebraska 28-1206 Firearm with barrel Any felony Class IV felony under 18" or brass knuckles Nevada 202.360 Firearm Any felony $5,000 fine and one to six years 202.380 Tear gas bomb or Felony drug offense or Felony weapon other enumerated serious felonies New Hampshire 159:3 Firearm or dangerous Any felony Class B felony weapon New Jersey 2C:39-7 Firearm or other lethal Enumerated serious Fourth degree crime weapon offenses or drug offense New Mexico 30-7-16 Firearm Any felony within 10 Misdemeanor years New York Pen. Law ¤ 265.01 Rifle or shotgun Felony or serious Class A misdemeanor offense Pen. Law ¤ 265.02 Firearm Felony or class A Class D felony misdemeanor within five years North Carolina 14-415.1 Handgun or firearm with Enumerated felonies and Class 1 felony barrel under 18" or serious offenses within overall length under five years 26" or any weapon of mass death and destruction North Dakota 62.1-02-01 Firearm Violent felony within Class C felony 10 years or any other felony or misdemeanor involving violence or use of firearm or dangerous weapon within five years Ohio 2923.13 Firearm or dangerous Violent felony or drug Fourth degree felony ordnance offense Oklahoma 21-1283, 84 Concealable firearm Any felony Felony

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 1 ¥ Page 75 Statutes making possession of a firearm by a convicted felon a criminal offense

State Citation Prohibited If previously Penalty weapons* convicted of (or offense level) Oregon 166.270 Firearm or enumerated Felony involving Class C felony dangerous weapons firearm or switchblade knife within 15 years Pennsylvania 18-6105, 6119 Firearm Crime of violence First degree misdemeanor Rhode Island 11-47-5 Firearm Crime of violence Two to 10 years without probation South Carolina 16-23-30, 50 Pistol Crime of violence Felony Tennessee 39-17-1307 Firearm, club, knife Violent felony or Class E felony with blade over 4" felony with deadly weapon within five years Texas Pen. Code ¤ 46.05 Firearm Violent felony Third degree felony Utah 76-10-503 Firearm or dangerous Crime of violence Felony (level depends weapon on circumstances) Virgin Islands 14-2253(a) Firearm Felony Up to 15 years and $12,000 fine depending on type of weapon Virginia 18.2-308.2 Firearm or enumerated Felony Class 6 felony dangerous weapons Washington 9.41.040 Pistol or firearm with Violent crime, felony Class C felony barrel under 12" with firearm or felony drug offense West Virginia 61-7-7 Firearm or other deadly Felony Misdemeanor. 90 days weapon to a year or fine or both Wisconsin 941.29 Firearm Felony Class E felony Wyoming 6-8-102 Firearm Violent felony or Felony attempt

Page 76 ¥ Appendix 1 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 2

“Statutes requiring or permitting prior criminal records to be considered in bail decisions” Excerpt from Table 2, from Statutes Requiring the Use of Criminal History Record Information

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 2 ¥ Page 77 Statutes* requiring or permitting prior criminal records to be considered in bail decisions (Note: States which do not have statutes requiring or permitting prior criminal records to be considered in bail decisions are omitted from the table.)

State Citation Statutory provision (Statutory provisions are summarized or paraphrased.)

United States (Federal) 18 USC ¤ 3142(e)(1); (f)1; Bail considerations may include criminal history and record of (g)(3)(A) appearance; rebuttable presumption of denial of bail if previously convicted of crime of violence or enumerated serious offenses or combination of offenses. Alabama Rules Judic. Admin., R. 2 Bail factors shall include evidence of prior convictions. Rules Crim. Proc., R. 7.2 Courts may impose conditions of release to secure appearance or to protect the public based upon, among other things, defendant’s prior criminal record. Alaska 12.30.020(c)(8) Factors affecting conditions of release shall include the person’s record of convictions and record of appearance. Arizona 13-3967(C) Factors affecting method of release or amount of bail shall include person’s record of arrests and convictions and appearance at court proceedings. Const., art. II, ¤ 22 Provides for denial of bail for felony offenses committed while on bail for a prior felony offense. Arkansas Rule Crim. Proc., R. 9.2 Factors affecting amount of bail shall include person’s prior criminal record and history of response to legal process. California Pen. Code ¤ 1275 Bail factors shall include defendant’s previous criminal record. Colorado 16-4-101 et seq. Factors affecting bail amount or denial of bail on grounds of public danger shall include defendant’s prior criminal record and record of appearance. Const. art. 2, ¤¤ 19, 20 Authorizes denial of bail on grounds of dangerousness for persons charged with crimes of violence committed while on release, parole or probation or who have specified prior felony convictions. Connecticut 54-63b Release criteria shall include defendant’s prior criminal record and record of appearance. Bail commissioner’s report shall include defendant’s prior criminal record. Delaware 11-2105(b) Bail factors shall include defendant’s prior criminal record and record of appearance. District of Columbia 23-1303 Bail agency report to judicial officer shall include defendant’s prior criminal record. 23-1321(b) Judicial bail determinations regarding imposition of release conditions shall be based upon, among other things, defendant’s record of convictions and record of appearance. 23-1322 Authorizes pretrial detention to protect public based upon, among other things, defendant’s prior criminal history. Florida 903.046(2)(d) Bail factors shall include defendant’s record of convictions and record of appearance. Prior record of failure to appear renders defendant ineligible for some types of bond. 907.041 Authorizes pretrial detention to protect public, based upon, among other factors, specified previous convictions, previous violations of release, or commission of a dangerous crime while on probation, parole or release. Georgia 17-6-1 Prohibits bail, except upon order of Superior Court, of persons charged with enumerated serious felonies who have previously been convicted of such a felony or who committed the new offense while on probation, parole or bail for such a felony. *Including constitutional provisions or court rules.

Page 78 ¥ Appendix 2 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Statutes* requiring or permitting prior criminal records to be considered in bail decisions (Note: States which do not have statutes requiring or permitting prior criminal records to be considered in bail decisions are omitted from the table.)

State Citation Statutory provision (Statutory provisions are summarized or paraphrased.)

Hawaii 804.3 Rebuttable presumption of danger to community (and denial of bail) if defendant has been convicted of a crime of violence during previous 10 years, or if defendant was on bail, probation or parole for a violent felony charge at time of arrest. Illinois 38-110-5(a) Bail factors shall include defendant’s record of convictions and delinquency adjudications, and whether defendant is already on bail or under supervision. Indiana 35-33-8-4 Factors relevant to release on bail (and bail amount) shall include defendant’s criminal or juvenile record and record of non-appearance. Iowa 811.2 Bail considerations shall include defendant’s record of convictions and record of appearance or flight. Kansas 22-2802(4) Pretrial bail considerations shall include defendant’s record of convictions and appearance or non-appearance or flight, and whether defendant is on parole. Kentucky 431.525 Amount of bail shall be considerate of the past criminal acts of the defendant. Louisiana Code Crim. Proc., art. 317 Factors in determining amount of bail shall include the defendant’s previous criminal record. Art. 317.1 Magistrate setting bail may apply to juvenile court for defendant’s juvenile abstract. Maine 15-1026.4 Pretrial bailsetting official shall consider defendant’s criminal record and record of appearance and whether defendant is on probation or parole or other supervision. 15-1051.2 Same factors shall be considered in post-conviction bail determinations. Maryland Art. 27, ¤ 616 1/2(c) Rebuttable presumption of bail denial for person charged with enumerated serious offenses committed while on bail for prior enumerated serious offenses. Art. 27, ¤ 616 1/2(d) No personal recognizance for person charged with enumerated serious offenses if previously convicted of such an offense. Massachusetts 276-58 Bail factors shall include defendant’s record of convictions and record of failure to appear or flight, and whether defendant already is on bail, parole, probation or other form of supervision. Michigan Const., art. 1, ¤ 15 Permits denial of bail for persons charged with violent felonies if convicted of two or more violent felonies within previous 15 years, and persons charged with violent felonies while on bail, probation or parole for previous violent felony. 765.6 Amount of bail shall reflect the defendant’s previous criminal record. Const., art. 1 ¤ 15 Bail may be denied for person charged with a violent felony who has been convicted of two violent felonies within previous 15 years or who was already on bail, parole or probation in connection with a violent felony charge or conviction. Minnesota Rules Crim. Proc., R. 6.02(2) Release condition factors shall include defendant’s record of convictions and record of appearance or flight. Mississippi 99-3-18 Release factors concerning a person arrested for a misdemeanor shall include prior arrest record. *Including constitutional provisions or court rules.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 2 ¥ Page 79 Appendix 3

“Statutes authorizing sentencing of persistent recidivists to enhanced terms as career criminals or habitual criminals” Excerpt from Table 5, from Statutes Requiring the Use of Criminal History Record Information

Page 80 ¥ Appendix 3 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Statutes authorizing sentencing of persistent recidivists to enhanced terms as career criminals or habitual criminals (Note: States which do not have statutes authorizing sentencing of persistent recidivists to enhanced terms as career or habitual criminals are omitted from the table.)

State Citation Statutory provision (Statutory provisions are summarized or paraphrased.)

United States (Federal) 28 U.S.C. ¤¤ 994(h) Provides that sentencing guidelines shall ensure substantial prison terms for persons who commit crimes of violence and have two or more previous felony convictions for crimes of violence or serious drug offenses. Sentencing Guidelines Provides for sentencing of career offenders (as defined above) at the ¤4B1.1 maximum criminal history category level, which substantially increases the maximum and minimum sentences. Alabama 13A-5-9 Provides for enhanced punishment for persons who commit felonies after committing prior felonies, ranging from one grade level enhancement for persons who have one prior felony conviction to life imprisonment without parole for persons who have three prior felonies and commit another class A felony. 13A-12-231 Provides for sentencing under the recidivist statute of persons who commit serious drug offenses after one or more prior felony convictions. 32-5A-191 Repeat DUI offenders. Provides for sentencing to increasingly enhanced fines and jail terms based on number of prior DUI convictions within specified time periods. Alaska 12.55.155 Provides for sharply enhanced sentencing for aggravating factors, including prior felony convictions or repeated offenses similar to the instant offense. Arizona 13-604 Dangerous and repetitive offenders. Provides for enhanced sentences for repetitive offenders up to five times the normal sentence, with limited parole eligibility, based upon the seriousness of the offense charged and the number and seriousness of prior offenses. 13-604.01 Dangerous crimes against children. Provides for enhanced sentences, up to life imprisonment without parole, for persons who commit enumerated offenses against children and who have prior convictions for such offenses. Arkansas 5-4-501 Provides for sentencing of habitual offenders to enhanced terms, up to life imprisonment for persons with four or more prior felonies, depending on the seriousness of the present offense and the number of prior felony convictions. 16-90-202 Provides that persons who commit murder, rape, carnal abuse or kidnapping and who have two or more prior convictions for any such offenses shall be deemed habitual criminals and sentenced to life imprisonment, if the death penalty does not apply. California Pen. Code 667.7 Provides for enhanced sentences as habitual offenders for persons who commit violent felonies and who have served two or more previous sentences for violent or serious offenses within the previous 10 years. Colorado 16-13-101 Provides that persons convicted of felonies who have previously been convicted of two felonies within the past 10 years or three felonies at any time shall be adjudged to be habitual offenders and sentenced to 25-50 years (two previous felonies) or life imprisonment (three or more previous felonies), if not sentenced to death. Connecticut 53a-40 Provides for enhanced sentences for persistent dangerous felony offenders, persistent serious felony offenders, persistent larceny offenders and persistent felony offenders, depending on the offense charged and the number and nature of prior convictions and sentences.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 3 ¥ Page 81 Statutes authorizing sentencing of persistent recidivists to enhanced terms as career criminals or habitual criminals (Note: States which do not have statutes authorizing sentencing of persistent recidivists to enhanced terms as career or habitual criminals are omitted from the table.)

State Citation Statutory provision (Statutory provisions are summarized or paraphrased.)

Delaware 11-4214 Provides for enhanced penalties for persons convicted for the third time of enumerated serious felonies (mandatory life imprisonment if death is not imposed) or for the fourth time of any felony offense (up to life imprisonment). District of Columbia 22-104a Provides for enhanced sentences up to life imprisonment for persons convicted for the third time of felony offenses. Florida 775.084 et seq. Provides for enhanced penalties (up to life without parole) for habitual felony offenders (two or more previous felonies) and habitual violent felony offenders (previous violent felony conviction). Requires law enforcement agencies to employ enhanced law enforcement management efforts and resources for investigation, apprehension and prosecution of career criminals. Georgia 17-10-7(b) Provides that persons convicted of fourth felony must be given maximum term and cannot be paroled. Hawaii 706-606.5 Provides for enhanced sentences (up to 30 years imprisonment) for persons with prior felonies within specified periods, depending on the seriousness of the charged offense and the number of prior felony convictions. 706-661, 662 Provides for enhanced penalties (up to life) for persistent offenders (two or more previous felonies) and professional criminals. 845-1 et seq. Establishes a career criminal prosecution program to provide additional financial and technical resources for the prosecution of persons with prior convictions of designated types within specified periods. Idaho 19-2514 Provides for mandatory prison terms of five years to life for persistent violators - persons who have three or more felony convictions. Illinois 38-33B-1 Provides for mandatory life terms, if death penalty is not imposed, for persons who commit violent offenses and who have two or more prior convictions for violent offenses within 20 years. Indiana 35-50-2-7.1, -8 Provides for adding eight to 30 years to normal sentences for habitual felony offenders who have two or more prior felony convictions, depending on the crime charged, the nature of the previous offenses and the time period during which they were committed. 35-50-2-10 Provides for enhanced terms of three to eight additional years for habitual drug offenders - those with two or more drug offense convictions within specified periods. Iowa 902.8, 9 Provides for mandatory minimum prison terms for persons convicted of designated felonies who have two or more felony convictions. Kansas 21-4504 Provides for sentences of up to twice the prescribed minimum and maximum sentences for persons convicted for the second time for a felony offense and for up to three times the prescribed minimum and maximum for persons convicted of three or more felonies. Kentucky 532.080 Provides for enhanced prison terms for persistent felony offenders - those who have one or more prior felony convictions within specified periods. Sentences range from the next highest degree of offense to life, depending on the seriousness of the present offense and the number of prior felonies.

Page 82 ¥ Appendix 3 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 4

“Statutes providing for upgraded charges for offenders with prior convictions” Excerpt from Table 3, from Statutes Requiring the Use of Criminal History Record Information

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 4 ¥ Page 83 Statutes providing for upgraded charges for offenders with prior convictions (Note: States which do not have statutes providing for upgraded charges for offenders with prior convictions are omitted from the table.)

State Citation Statutory provision (Statutory provisions are summarized or paraphrased.)

Alabama 13A-12-213 Second offense of simple possession of marijuana is class C felony. Alaska 11.46.130 Theft of property of value of $50 - $500 is class C felony if person has been convicted and sentenced for theft or concealment offenses twice within the previous five years. 11.46.140 Theft of property of value of less than $50 is a class A misdemeanor if the person has been convicted and sentenced for theft or concealment offenses twice within previous five years. 11.46.220 Concealment of stolen merchandise by a person who has been convicted and sentenced for the same offense twice within the previous five years is a class C felony if the value of the property is $50 to $500, and is a class A misdemeanor if the property is a value under $50. 11.46.484 Criminal mischief involving property valued at $50 - $500 is a class A misdemeanor, but if the person has been convicted of criminal mischief within the previous seven years, the offense is a class C felony. 11.71.010 Drug misconduct is an unclassified felony if the criminal offense is a felony and is part of a continuing series of at least five drug violations undertaken with at least five other persons supervised by the offender. Arizona 13-1406.01 First offense of sexual of a spouse is a class 6 felony; subsequent offenses are class 2 felonies. 13-3410 Serious drug offenders (those who commit serious drug offenses as part of a pattern of at least three related drug violations) shall be sentenced to life imprisonment. 13-3415 Consideration of whether an object is prohibited drug paraphernalia shall include, among other factors, any prior drug convictions of person owning or controlling the object. 28-692.01.E Person convicted of a second driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol (DUI) violation within 60 months is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor. A third or subsequent violation is a class 5 felony. California Pen. Code ¤ 666 Person convicted of petty theft after previous conviction for theft, robbery or burglary shall be sentenced to up to one year in county jail. Pen. Code ¤ 313.4 Person convicted of distribution or exhibition of harmful matter to minor is punishable by up to $2,000 fine or up to one year in jail or both. Subsequent offense is punishable as a felony by imprisonment in state prison. Pen. Code ¤ 314 Indecent exposure is punishable by up to one year in jail. Subsequent offense is punishable as a felony and imprisonment in state prison. Colorado 12-22-127 First offense of violation of provisions relating to druggists and sale of drugs is a class 2 misdemeanor; second or subsequent offense is a class 6 felony. 18-12-108 First offense of possession of firearm by convicted felon is a class 5 felony. Second or subsequent offense is a class 4 felony.

Page 84 ¥ Appendix 4 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Statutes providing for upgraded charges for offenders with prior convictions (Note: States which do not have statutes providing for upgraded charges for offenders with prior convictions are omitted from the table.)

State Citation Statutory provision (Statutory provisions are summarized or paraphrased.)

Connecticut 53a-40 Provides for sentencing of persons with designated prior convictions as (1) a persistent dangerous felony offender (class A felony), (2) a persistent serious felony offender (next most serious degree of felony), (3) a persistent larceny offender (class D felony) or (4) a persistent felony offender (next most serious degree of felony). Delaware Senate Bill No. 58, July 1, Classifies offenses for sentencing purposes, including some offenses 1989, Truth in Sentencing upgraded based on prior convictions. Act Georgia 16-5-45 Interference with child custody. First offense is a misdemeanor; second offense is upgraded misdemeanor; third offense is a felony. 16-8-14 Shoplifting. First offense is a misdemeanor; second offense is an upgraded misdemeanor with mandatory fine; third offense is an upgraded misdemeanor with mandatory jail term; fourth or subsequent offense is a felony. 16-11-126 Carrying concealed weapon. First offense is a misdemeanor; second or subsequent offense is a felony. 16-11-128 Carrying a firearm without a license. First offense is a misdemeanor; second or subsequent offense is a felony. Idaho 18-8005 DUI. First offense is a misdemeanor with possible fine and jail term; second offense within five years is a misdemeanor with mandatory jail term; third or subsequent offense within five years is a felony. Illinois 23-2355 Child endangerment. First offense is a class A misdemeanor; second or subsequent offense is a class 4 felony. 38-11-14 Prostitution. First and second offenses are misdemeanors; third and subsequent offenses are felonies. 38-11-20 Obscenity is a class A misdemeanor; second or subsequent offense is a class 4 felony. 38-12-15 Criminal sexual abuse is a class A misdemeanor; second or subsequent offense is a class 2 felony. 38-16-1 Theft of property not exceeding $300 in value is a class A misdemeanor, but if the offender has previously been convicted of theft, robbery, burglary, possession of burglary tools or home invasion, the offense is a class 4 felony. 38-24-1 Unlawful use of weapons. First offense for carrying or possessing an unlawful weapon is a class A misdemeanor; a second or subsequent violation is a class 4 felony. 38-28-3 Keeping a gambling place. First offense is a class C misdemeanor; a second or subsequent offense is a class 4 felony. 38-33A-3 Commission of a felony with a category II weapon is a class 2 felony; a second or subsequent violation is a class 1 felony. 38-37-1 Maintaining a public nuisance. First offense is a class A misdemeanor; second or subsequent offense is a class 4 felony. 56 1/2-1406 Controlled substance offenses. First offenses are class A misdemeanors; second and subsequent offenses are class 4 felonies.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 4 ¥ Page 85 Appendix 5

“Statutes providing for enhanced sentences for offenders with prior convictions” Excerpt from Table 4, from Statutes Requiring the Use of Criminal History Record Information

Page 86 ¥ Appendix 5 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Statutes providing for enhanced sentences for offenders with prior convictions (Note: States which do not have statutes providing for enhanced sentences for offenders with prior convictions are omitted from the table.)

State Citation Statutory provision (Statutory provisions are summarized or paraphrased.)

United States (Federal) 18-924(c) Firearms violations. Provides for enhanced sentences for second and subsequent offenses involving crimes of violence or drug trafficking committed with a firearm. First offender gets five years (30 if the weapon is a machine gun or is equipped with a silencer); second and subsequent offenders get 20 years (machine guns or silencer: life without release). 18-841(h) Use of explosives to commit a felony. First offense - one to 10 years; second or subsequent offenses - five to 25 years with no suspension or probation. 28-991 et seq. Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Provides for sentence enhancements for all except minor offenses based upon seriousness of the offense and prior criminal record. Alabama 15-18-9 Repeat felony offenders. Second or subsequent class B or C felony offenses are increased by one level of degree; second or subsequent class A felony offenses are punishable by 15 years to life. 13A-5-49 Capital offenses. Provides that aggravating circumstances supporting death sentence shall include fact that offender has previously been convicted of a capital felony or a violent felony. 13A-12-231 Drug trafficking. First offense - class A felony; second or subsequent offense is punishable under the habitual felony offender law (13A-5-9). 20-2-71(a)(3) Drug offenses- failure to keep required records. First offense - class A misdemeanor; second or subsequent offense - class B felony. 32-5A-191 DUI. Provides for enhanced penalties for second or subsequent offenses, including a mandatory 60-day jail term for a third offense. Alaska 12.55.125, .145 Repeat felony offenders. Sets out enhanced presumptive sentences for second and third convictions of various classes, if prior offenses occurred within 10 years. 12.55.175 Sentencing of felony offenders. Provides that the presumptive sentences for felony offenders may be increased if the offenders have three or more prior felony convictions. Arizona 13-604 Sentencing of dangerous and repetitive offenders. Provides for enhanced sentences (up to five times the normal sentence) for persons charged with felonies who have prior convictions for felonies. 13-604.01 Dangerous crimes against children. Provides for enhanced presumptive sentences for persons with prior offenses. 13-703 Capital offenses. Aggravating circumstances supporting death sentence include prior convictions for capital offenses or violent offenses. 13.604.02 Offenses committed while on release. Provides for enhanced sentences (up to life without parole sooner than 25 years) for felony offenses committed while on parole, probation or other release following a prior felony conviction. Arkansas 5-4-604 Capital offenses. Aggravating circumstances supporting death sentence include prior convictions for violent felonies and commission of offense while escaped after sentencing for felony conviction.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 5 ¥ Page 87 Statutes providing for enhanced sentences for offenders with prior convictions (Note: States which do not have statutes providing for enhanced sentences for offenders with prior convictions are omitted from the table.)

State Citation Statutory provision (Statutory provisions are summarized or paraphrased.)

Arkansas (cont.) 16-90-201 Repeat felony offenders. Provides for enhanced sentences up to one and one-half times the normal sentence, depending on the number of prior convictions and the seriousness of the new offense. 20-64-304 Drug offenses. Provides for enhanced penalties for second offenses (up to $2,000 fine and three to five years) and third offenses (up to $5,000 fine and five to 10 years). California Pen. Code ¤ 190.05 Murder. Provides that a person convicted of second degree murder who has a prior conviction for first or second degree murder shall be sentenced to life without parole or 15 years to life, depending on aggravating or mitigating circumstances. Pen. Code ¤ 190.2 First degree murder. Provides that aggravating circumstances supporting death penalty shall include prior convictions for first or second degree murder. Pen. Code ¤ 666.5 Felony vehicle theft. Second offense - three to five years. Pen. Code ¤ 666.7 Receiving stolen vehicles or parts. Provides for enhanced penalty (up to $10,000 fine or four years, or both) for third or subsequent offense. Pen. Code ¤ 667.5 Violent offenses. Provides for sentence enhancements of three years for every previous prison term served for a violent offense within 10 years. Pen. Code ¤ 667.51 Lewd acts with child. Provides for enhanced prison terms for previous offenses. Pen. Code ¤ 667.6 Sex crimes. Provides for an enhancement of five years for each prior conviction within 10 years and a 10 year enhancement for each prior prison term served within 10 years. Pen. Code ¤ 667.7 Violent offenses. Two prior prison terms for such offenses within 10 years - life with no parole prior to 20 years. Three or more prior prison terms within 10 years - life without parole. Pen. Code ¤ 667.75 Drug violations. Provides for enhanced term of life without parole sooner than 17 years if offender has served two or more prison terms for drug offenses within 10 years. Pen Code ¤ 667.9, .10 Violent offenses against aged, disabled or underage persons. Provides for a two-year enhancement for each prior conviction for such offenses. Colorado 18-18-105 Drug trafficking. Provides for a mandatory 20 year prison term for second offense of drug trafficking in or near a school. Connecticut 53a-46a Capital offenses. Provides that aggravating factors supporting death penalty shall include two or more prior felony convictions. 21a-277 Drug offenses. Provides for enhancements for second or subsequent offenses up to 30 years and a $250,000 fine. Delaware 11-4209. Capital offenses. Provides that aggravating factors supporting death penalty shall include a prior conviction for murder, manslaughter or a violent felony. 16-4763 Drug offenses. Provides for enhanced penalties for second or subsequent offenses based upon the new offense committed. 16-4764 Drug offenses. Provides for conditional discharge for first offense of possession.

Page 88 ¥ Appendix 5 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 6

“Statutes authorizing consideration of criminal history in correctional classification and supervision” Table 8 from Statutes Requiring the Use of Criminal History Record Information, pp. 52-54

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 6 ¥ Page 89 Statutes authorizing consideration of criminal history in correctional classification and supervision (Note: States which do not have statutes authorizing consideration of criminal history in correctional classification and supervision are omitted from the table.)

State Citation Statutory provision (Statutory provisions are summarized or paraphrased.)

Alabama 15-22-25 Requires that the board of and paroles shall make a complete investigation of each newly received prisoner and compile a report that must include the prisoner’s criminal record. Alaska 33.30.091 Requires commissioner of public safety to assign prisoners to programs based upon, among other things, the prisoner’s record of convictions, with particular emphasis on convictions for sex crimes. Arizona 13-701 Provides that the presentence report, which includes the offender’s criminal history, must be forwarded to the Department of Corrections. Arkansas 12-27-113(e) Requires the director of the Department of Corrections to compile a complete record on each inmate including trial, conviction and past history. 12-29-101 Requires the director of the Department of Corrections to establish a system for classifying prisoners according to deportment, taking into consideration their records prior to commitment. California Pen. Code ¤ 5068 Requires the Director of Corrections to classify a prisoner for program assignment based upon all pertinent circumstances including "the antecedents of the violation of law because of which he or she has been committed." Florida 921.20 Requires the classification board to compile a classification summary for each prisoner, including "criminal, personal, social and environmental background." 944.17(5) Requires the sheriff or other officer delivering an offender to the Department of Corrections to deliver any available presentence reports. 944.1905 Requires the Department of Corrections to classify inmates pursuant to an objective classification scheme that takes into consideration the inmate’s verified history involving intentional violence. Georgia 42-8-291 Requires that presentence reports (including State and FBI criminal history sheets) shall be delivered with each offender to the Department of Corrections and the Board of Pardons and Paroles. Hawaii 353-7 Authorizes establishment of a high security correctional facility for high risk inmates, including recidivists. Idaho 20-224 Requires the Board of Corrections to establish a record on each inmate, including the inmate’s previous criminal record. Illinois 38-1003-8-1 Requires the sheriff delivering a prisoner to the Department of Corrections to deliver the presentence report which must include the inmate’s criminal history. Indiana 35-38-3-5 Requires classification of new inmates as to degree of security and candidacy for home detention based upon, among other things, prior criminal record. Iowa 901.4 Requires presentence reports, with criminal history records, to be delivered to the Department of Corrections with inmates.

Page 90 ¥ Appendix 6 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Statutes authorizing consideration of criminal history in correctional classification and supervision (Note: States which do not have statutes authorizing consideration of criminal history in correctional classification and supervision are omitted from the table.)

State Citation Statutory provision (Statutory provisions are summarized or paraphrased.)

Louisiana Code Crim. Proc. art. 875, Requires a presentence report (which includes offender’s previous 876 criminal record) to be sent to the division of probation and parole if the offender is committed. If an offender is committed and no presentence report has been compiled, the division must compile one within 60 days. Maryland 27-691 Requires the Division of Correction to compile a case record for each inmate including previous criminal record and to classify inmates to training, treatment or employment programs on the basis of such case record. Massachusetts 127-2 Requires the superintendents of correctional institutions to keep full and accurate records on inmates and gives such superintendents access to the State criminal record repository for such purposes. 127-27 Requires the prosecutor of committed offenders to forward their criminal history records to the Department of Corrections. Michigan 791.264 Requires the bureau of penal institutions to classify prisoners on the basis of files established by classification committees and requires clerks of court and probation officers to make criminal records available to the classification committees. Mississippi 47-5-103 Requires classification committee to consider an inmate’s criminal and juvenile history in determining work duties, living quarters, rehabilitation programs and privileges. Missouri 217.305 Requires sheriff delivering a prisoner to the Department of Corrections to deliver prisoner’s previous criminal record. 217.345 Requires the Department of Corrections to establish treatment programs for first offenders. Nebraska 83-178(1)(d), (2) Requires the chief executive officer of each correctional facility to establish files for inmates to be used for classification, transfer, parole and other purposes. Each such file must contain the inmate’s criminal history record. Nevada 209.351(2)(d) Requires the director of the Department of Corrections to establish a system of classification, based upon, among other things, the inmate’s record of convictions. 209.481 Makes eligibility for assignment to honor camp dependent upon, among other things, past criminal history. New Jersey 30:4-141 Requires the board of managers to obtain and record information about each inmate’s "past life," among other things. 30:4-147 Authorizes inmates between the ages of 15 and 30 to be committed to the youth correctional complex if they have not previously been sentenced to prison. New York Cr. Proc. Law ¤ 390.60 Requires copies of presentence reports (which include criminal histories) to be delivered with offenders committed to terms of imprisonment. Ohio 2929.221 Provides that a person convicted of a third or fourth degree felony may serve the term of imprisonment in a county jail if offender has no prior felony conviction. Rhode Island 12-19-2 Provides that certain first offenders may be sentenced to work release at a minimum security facility.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 6 ¥ Page 91 Statutes authorizing consideration of criminal history in correctional classification and supervision (Note: States which do not have statutes authorizing consideration of criminal history in correctional classification and supervision are omitted from the table.)

State Citation Statutory provision (Statutory provisions are summarized or paraphrased.)

Rhode Island (cont.) 42-56-20.2 Prohibits eligibility for community confinement if convicted or previously convicted of certain enumerated crimes. South Carolina 24-13-710 Makes eligibility for supervised furlough dependent on, among other things, previous criminal convictions and sentences. Texas Govt. Code ¤ 497.002 Requires the Department of Corrections to classify inmates on the basis of, among other things, criminal histories. Utah 76-3-404 Requires the Department of Corrections to conduct presentence investigations and prepare reports that must include criminal histories. Washington 9.94A.110 Requires that presentence reports, which include criminal history information, must accompany offenders committed to the Department of Corrections. West Virginia 62-12-7, 7a Requires that presentence reports, which include information on offenders’ criminal histories, be delivered to the Department of Corrections. Wisconsin 972.15(5) Provides that the Department of Corrections may use presentence reports, which include criminal history information, for correctional classification and parole purposes. Wyoming 7-13-104 Requires the State board of parole to keep complete records on all prisoners and requires the State criminal record repository to make records available for that purpose. 7-13-303 Requires the presentence report, which includes criminal history record information, to be forwarded to the penal institution with committed offenders.

Page 92 ¥ Appendix 6 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 7

“Statutes providing that parole eligibility shall or may be affected by prior convictions” Excerpt from Table 9, from Statutes Requiring the Use of Criminal History Record Information

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 7 ¥ Page 93 Statutes providing that parole eligibility shall or may be affected by prior convictions (Note: States which do not have statutes providing that parole eligibility shall or may be affected by prior convictions are omitted from the table.)

State Citation Statutory provision (Statutory provisions are summarized or paraphrased.)

Alabama 15-22-27.1 Person convicted of murder or a violent felony resulting in serious injury who has a conviction for a violent felony within previous five years is ineligible for parole. 15-22-27.2 Person given life sentence for second class A felony is ineligible for parole. Alaska 33.16.090, .100 Limits eligibility for discretionary parole for persons sentenced to enhanced terms as repeat offenders. 33.16.110 Provides that the parole board shall consider the presentence report compiled for the sentencing court, including the prisoner’s criminal and juvenile history and his previous experience on parole or probation. Arizona 41-1604.07 Bases rates of earned release credits upon, among other things, prior criminal record. 13-604 Limits parole eligibility [person must serve a designated number of years before becoming eligible for parole consideration] for dangerous and repetitive offenders, based upon the seriousness of the offense and the number and seriousness of prior offenses. 13-604.01 Limits parole eligibility for persons convicted of dangerous crimes against children who have prior convictions for such offenses. 13-604.02 Limits parole eligibility for persons convicted of felonies while on parole, probations or any other form of release. 31-233.01 Provides that eligibility for release on work furlough shall depend on, among other things, the prisoner’s prior criminal record. 31-233(I) Prohibits early release (because of overcrowding) of prisoners with prior felony convictions. 13-1406.01 Limits parole eligibility for persons convicted for a second or subsequent time of sexual assault of a spouse. Arkansas 16-93-601 thru 610 Establishes parole eligibility depending on date of offense, seriousness of offense and prior criminal record. California Pen. Code ¤ 667.7 Limits parole eligibility for habitual offenders based upon number of prior prison terms served for enumerated serious offenses. Pen. Code ¤ 667.75 Limits parole eligibility for persons convicted of enumerated drug offenses who have served prior prison terms for drug offenses. Pen. Code ¤ 190.05 Provides for life sentence without parole for a person convicted of second degree murder who has served a prison term for murder. Pen. Code ¤ 190.2 Provides for life without parole for a person convicted of first degree murder who has a prior conviction for murder. Colorado 17-22.5-303.5 Establishes parole guidelines that set out aggravating circumstances affecting the length and conditions of parole, including whether the offender was on parole or probation when he comitted the crime for which he was committed and the offender has numerous or increasingly serious adult or juvenile convictions. Florida 947.002, .165 Provides for establishment of objective parole criteria for persons serving parole-eligible sentences based upon the offender’s present criminal offense and his past criminal record. Georgia 17-10-7 Prohibits parole for persons convicted of a felony for the fourth or subsequent time.

Page 94 ¥ Appendix 7 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Statutes providing that parole eligibility shall or may be affected by prior convictions (Note: States which do not have statutes providing that parole eligibility shall or may be affected by prior convictions are omitted from the table.)

State Citation Statutory provision (Statutory provisions are summarized or paraphrased.)

Hawaii 706-669 Requires the state paroling authority to establish guidelines for determining minimum terms of imprisonment, taking into account the seriousness of the offense and the offender’s prior criminal history. 706-660.1 Provides for mandatory terms of imprisonment without parole for persons convicted of second or subsequent firearm felony offenses. Idaho 20-223(b) Provides that persons serving sentences for sex offenses who have a history of previous sex offenses shall be ineligible for parole. Illinois 38-1003-3-4 Provides that parole board shall make its determination based upon, among other things, the presentence report (which contains information about the offender’s criminal history). 38-1005-5-3 Provides for sentencing certain offenders to terms of imprisonment without parole based upon prior criminal history. Indiana 11-13-3-3 Provides that parole decisions shall be based in part upon inmates’ past criminal histories. Iowa 902.8 Habitual offenders not eligible for parole until minimum sentence is served. 902.11 Person convicted of a forcible felony with a prior violent felony conviction or convicted of a nonforcible felony with a prior forcible felony conviction within previous five years is ineligible for parole until half of maximum sentence is served. 906.5 Parole board to consider previous criminal history. Kansas 22-3717(f) Parole board to consider previous criminal history. Kentucky 532.045 Prohibits parole for persons convicted of second or subsequent sex offense against a minor. 439.340 Parole board required to obtain criminal history record of all parole- eligible offenders. Board shall consider previous criminal record in parole decisions. Louisiana 15:574.4 Portion of sentence that convicted felon must serve before parole eligibility dependent upon numbers of previous felony convictions and whether previous sentence has been served. Parole board shall consider previous criminal record. Code Crim. Proc. art. 875, Requires presentence report (with criminal history) to be sent to 876 division of probation and parole with committed offender. Maryland 27-286, -286D Limits parole eligibility for persons convicted of repeat drug violations. 27-643B Provides for mandatory 25-year term with limited parole eligibility for person convicted of third crime of violence who has served at least one prior prison term for a crime of violence. Provides for life without parole for fourth conviction for a crime of violence. Massachusetts 127-133B Person convicted as habitual offender not eligible for parole until half of maximum term is served. 94C-32H Person convicted of repeat drug offenses not eligible for parole until mandatory minimum term is served. Michigan 333.7413 Person convicted of drug trafficking for second or subsequent time sentenced to life without parole.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 7 ¥ Page 95 Appendix 8

Sample Criminal History Record Formats

¥ Florida ¥ Hawaii ¥ Utah ¥ Virginia

Editor’s note: These criminal history records are actual sample test records provided by these States, and each record appears in its original format.

Page 96 ¥ Appendix 8 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Electronic Editor’s Note: An electronic version of this page is not available. Electronic Editor’s Note: An electronic version of this page is not available. Electronic Editor’s Note: An electronic version of this page is not available. Electronic Editor’s Note: An electronic version of this page is not available. Electronic Editor’s Note: An electronic version of this page is not available. Electronic Editor’s Note: An electronic version of this page is not available. Electronic Editor’s Note: An electronic version of this page is not available. Electronic Editor’s Note: An electronic version of this page is not available. Electronic Editor’s Note: An electronic version of this page is not available. Electronic Editor’s Note: An electronic version of this page is not available. Electronic Editor’s Note: An electronic version of this page is not available. Electronic Editor’s Note: An electronic version of this page is not available. Electronic Editor’s Note: An electronic version of this page is not available. Appendix 9

Federal Bureau of Investigation/Bureau of Justice Statistics Recommended Voluntary Reporting Standards for Improving the Quality of Criminal History Record Information

Page 110 ¥ Appendix 9 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Federal Bureau of Investigation/Bureau of Justice Statistics Recommended Voluntary Reporting Standards for Improving the Quality of Criminal Record Information

The following 10 “Recommended 4. All disposition reports submitted 8. Every State shall ensure that Voluntary Standards for Improving the to the State repository and the FBI ID annual audits of a representative Quality of Criminal History Record shall contain the following: FBI sample of State and local criminal Information” were jointly developed by number (if available), name of subject, justice agencies shall be conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the date of birth, sex, state identifier the State to verify adherence to State Federal Bureau of Investigation.1 number, social security number (if and Federal standards and regulations. After adoption of these standards, the available), date of arrest, tracking functions referred to as FBI number (if available), arrest offense 9. Wherever criminal history record Identification (FBI ID) in the standards literal, court offense literal, and agency information is collected, stored, or were taken over by the Criminal identifier number of agency reporting disseminated, each State shall institute Justice Information Services Division arrest. procedures to assure the physical of FBI (FBI-CJIS). security of such information, to 5. All final disposition reports prevent unauthorized access, 1. Every State shall maintain submitted to the State repository and disclosure, or dissemination, and to fingerprint impressions or copies the FBI ID that report a conviction for ensure that such information cannot thereof as the basic source document an offense classified as a felony (or improperly be modified, destroyed, for each arrest (including incidents equivalent) within the State shall accessed, changed, purged, or overlaid. based upon a summons issued in lieu include a flag identifying the of an arrest warrant) recorded in the conviction as a felony. 10. Every State shall accurately criminal history record system. identify to the maximum extent 6. States shall ensure to the feasible all State criminal history 2. Arrest fingerprint impressions maximum extent possible that arrest records maintained or received in the submitted to the State repository and and/or confinement fingerprints are future that contain a conviction for an the FBI Identification Division (ID) submitted to the State repository and, offense classified as a felony (or should be complete, but shall at least when appropriate, to the FBI ID equivalent) within the State. contain the following data elements: within 24 hours; however, in the case date of arrest, originating agency of single-source states, state identification number, arrest charges, a repositories shall forward fingerprints, unique tracking number (if available) when appropriate, to the FBI ID and the subject's full name, date of within two weeks of receipt. birth, sex, race and social security number (if available). 7. States shall ensure to the maximum extent possible that final 3. Every State shall ensure that dispositions are reported to the State fingerprint impressions of persons repository and, where appropriate, to arrested for serious and/or significant the FBI ID within a period not to offenses are included in the national exceed 90 days after the disposition is criminal history records system. known.

1U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation and Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Recommended Voluntary Standards for Improving the Quality of Criminal History Record Information,” Federal Register 56 (February 13, 1991) p. 5849.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 9 ¥ Page 111 Appendix 10

“Overview of State criminal history record systems, 1992” Table 1 from Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1992

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 10 ¥ Page 112

Table 1. Overview of State criminal history record systems, 1992

Percent of arrests System has Percent of in database which have information record Fully Number of subjects final dispositions recorded System flags to identify subjects automated (individual offenders) in Arrests subjects with unflagged in master master State criminal history file All within felony felony State name index name index Total Automated arrests past 5 years convictions convictions

Total 47,307,900 36,404,800

Alabama 100% Yes 1,300,000 1,300,000 25% 40% All† Alaska 100 Yes 180,500 130,500 84 86 All†† Arizona 100 Yes 631,000 342,600 . . . 57 All† Arkansas 100 Noa 417,600 132,600 ...... All†† California 100 Yes 4,675,400 3,675,400 . . . 70 Some†† All

Colorado 100% Yes 575,700 575,700 11% . . . Some** All Connecticut 100 Yes 648,700 325,600 . . . 95% Delaware 100b Yes 237,300 158,000 50 62 Some District of Columbia 100 Noc 456,100 101,100 ...... Some†† Some Florida 100 Yes 2,671,700 2,671,700 52 32 Some** Some

Georgia 100% Yes 1,445,000 1,445,000 54% 45% All†† Hawaii 100 Yes 309,600 309,600 87 . . . All†† Idaho 100 Yes 132,300 76,200 . . . 45 All†† Illinois 88d Yes 2,493,200 2,193,200 52 . . . All†† Indiana 100 Noe 735,800 667,800 30 40-50

Iowa 100% Yes 377,000 226,200 90% 90% All Kansas 100 Yes 599,600 137,800 ...... Some†† Some Kentucky 100f Nog 530,500 424,500 30 30 Some Louisiana 100 Yes 1,591,500 579,400 ...... All Maine 6 8 Noh 300,000 0 90 97 Some

Maryland 100% Yes 1,050,900 563,200 70% 70% Somei All Massachusetts . . .j Nok 2,500,000 2,500,000 95 98 Some Michigan 100 Yes 939,900 939,900 71 74 Some Minnesota 100 Yes 232,500 157,500 50 70 Somel All Mississippi 100 No 350,000+ 26,000 20-30 50

Missouri 100% Yes 647,700 473,900 50% 65% All†† Montana 100 Yes 107,100 107,100 ...... All† Nebraska 100 Nom 124,000 117,000 75 55 Some†† Nevada 100 Yes 102,800 102,800 40 40 All New Hampshire 100 Yes 253,900 173,900 50 50 All†

New Jersey 100% Yes 1,187,400 987,400 90% 85% All†† New Mexico 100 Yes 201,000 0 15 20 Some New York 88n Yes 4,123,500o 3,575,600 63 74 All† North Carolina 100 Yes 529,800 459,300 87 85 Some††p Some North Dakota 100 Noq 212,900 54,200 60 90 Some†r Some

Ohio 100%s Not 2,444,400 820,000 ...... Some†u Some Oklahoma 100 Yes 600,000 360,000 50% 50% Some Oregon 100 Yes 661,800 661,800 ...... Some†† Pennsylvania 100 Yes 1,414,500 1,414,500 . . . 65 All† Puerto Rico 100 Yes 64,100 64,100 71 71 All††

Rhode Island 100% Yes 186,700 186,700 ...... South Carolina 100 Yes 695,900 629,200 71% 80% Some†† All South Dakota 100 Yes 125,000 70,500 60 60 All Tennessee 100 Nov 590,000 165,000 ...... Texas 100 Yes 4,277,700 4,277,700 39 . . . Some

Utah 100% Yes 325,000 325,000 50 55 All†† Vermont 100 Yes 130,000 0 95 85 Somew Virginia 100 Yes 874,500 615,900 82 . . . All** Virgin Islands NAx NA* 11,300 0 ...... Washington 100 Yes 643,300 643,300 70 68 All††

West Virginia 100% No* 750,000 0 . . . 75% Wisconsin 100 Yes 574,800 393,300 ...... Some†† Somey Wyoming 100 Yes 67,100 67,100 78% 83 Some

Page 113 ¥ Appendix 10 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Explanatory Notes for Table 1

The notes below expand on the data in Table 1. The explanatory information was provided by the respondent.

Note: Percentages and numbers reported are results of estimates. Numbers have jThere are 2.5 million records in the criminal history file which is court-based; been rounded to the nearest 100. Percentages have been rounded to the nearest these records are not on the MNI. There are 760,000 records that are whole number. The figures contained in the column "Number of subjects arrest/fingerprint-based; these records are on the MNI. (individual offenders) in State criminal history file" apply only to the criminal history file, including partially automated files, and do not include the master kThere are 760,000 records that are automated; a backlog consisting of 80,000 name index. Final dispositions include release by police without charging, records are not yet on the MNI. declination to proceed by prosecutor, or final trial court disposition. lThe data field has been created, but the flag is not currently being set. * State is fully manual. mAdding all records onto the automated MNI is in process. . . . Not available. nManual records with no activity since 1971 are not on the MNI. NA Not applicable. oThe figure represents the number of subjects in the criminal history file; however, † Flag is set when arrest information iss entered. 28% of the database consists of civil purpose files.

†† Flag is set when conviction information pMost of the current dispositions contain a felony or misdemeanor flag for each is entered. offense; however, the programs to flag the identification segment for an inquiry with purpose code “F” have not been developed. ** Flag is set at both arrest and conviction. qOnly those with a date of birth of 1940 and later are included in the automated aAll automated records and approximately 50% of the manual records are MNI. contained in an automated master name index (MNI). rEffective July 1, 1993, the flag is now set at conviction. bResponse indicates an increase from 95% reported in 1990. sResponse indicates an increase from 35% reported in 1990. cTraffic and misdemeanor cases are not included in the automated MNI. tThe automated MNI contains all arrest subjects since 1972. dResponse indicates an increase from 86% reported in 1990. uOnly recent additions to the file are flagged. eMore arrest information is being placed in the MNI than in 1989 which has resulted in a backlog which should be cleared in 12-18 months. New information vRespondent is undertaking an on-going data entry program to fully automate is current, but adding the additional information to prior MNI entries has not been the MNI. completed. wChanges in court documents have resulted in not “all” cases having sufficient fResponse indicates an increase from 70% reported in 1990. information to flag felonies. gThe manual file is not in the automated MNI. xThe Virgin Islands Record Bureau does not have a MNI; only a manual criminal history file is maintained. hApproximately 20,000 names, name derivatives and aliases have been entered into a temporary, abbreviated automated MNI; however, the MNI is not usable at yCurrently some arrest transactions are flagged indicating felony convictions. A this time for a name search. felony flag that will appear in the identification segment of the record is currently being developed. iThe flag is generated on demand when an inquiry is made against the file.

Page 114 ¥ Appendix 10 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 11

“Number of subjects (individual offenders) in State criminal history file, 1984, 1989 and 1992” Table 2 from Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1992

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 11 ¥ Page 115

Table 2. Number of subjects (individual offenders) in State criminal history file, 1984, 1989 and 1992

Number of subjects in Number of subjects in manual and automated files, 1992 Percent of Percent change manual and automated files Manual Automated automated files in total files State 1984 1989 Total file file 1989 1992 1984-89 1989-92

Total 30,367,500a 42,476,400b 47,307,900 10,903,100 36,404,800 77% 40% 11%

Alabama 900,000 1,000,000 1,300,000 0 1,300,000 50% 100% 11% 30% Alaska 124,400 143,000 180,500 50,000 130,500 86 72 15 21 Arizona 500,400 742,100 631,000 288,400 342,600 39 54 48 -15c Arkansas 550,100 480,000 417,600 285,000 132,600 0 32 -13 -15d California 3,600,000 4,500,000 4,675,400 1,000,000e 3,675,400 67 79 25 4

Colorado 336,800 489,000 575,700 0 575,700 100% 100% 45% 18% Connecticut 50,000 401,400 648,700 323,100 325,600 58 50 703 62 Delaware 206,000 600,000 237,300 79,300 158,000 83 67 191 -60f District of Columbia . . . 427,000 456,100 355,000 101,100 0 22 . . . 7 Florida 1,651,700 2,427,900 2,671,700 0 2,671,700 95 100 47 10

Georgia 782,000 1,055,000 1,445,000 0 1,445,000 100% 100% 35% 37% Hawaii 203,600 270,500 309,600 0 309,600 100 100 33 14 Idaho 137,100 105,000 132,300 56,100 76,200 100 57 -23 26 Illinois 1,900,000 2,152,300 2,493,200 300,000 2,193,200 86 88 13 16 Indiana 375,000 670,000 735,800 68,000 667,800 10 91 79 10

Iowa 275,000 300,000 377,000 150,800 226,200 43% 60% 9% 26% Kansas 400,000 520,000 599,600 461,800 137,800 3 23 30 15 Kentucky 297,000 535,100 530,500 106,000 424,500 72 79 80 -1 Louisiana 261,400 1,449,000 1,591,500 1,012,100 579,400 33 36 454 10 Maine 285,000g 270,000 300,000 300,000 0 0 0 -5 11

Maryland 250,000 649,300 1,050,900 487,700 563,200 69% 54% 160% 62% Massachusetts 1,740,000 2,260,000 2,500,000 0 2,500,000 21 100 30 11 Michigan 668,800 771,800 939,900 0 939,900 100 100 15 22 Minnesota 143,000 190,600 232,500 75,000 157,500 61 68 33 22 Mississippi . . . 350,000 350,000+ 324,000 26,000 0 7 ......

Missouri 503,000 593,000 647,700 173,800 473,900 81% 73% 91% -32% Montana 70,700 86,000 107,100 0 107,100 100 100 22 25 Nebraska 180,000 300,000 124,000c 7,000 117,000 40 94 67 -59 Nevada no repository 31,300 102,800 0 102,800 100 100 228 New Hampshire 135,000 155,000 253,900 80,000 173,900 93 68 15 39

New Jersey 1,000,000 1,090,200 1,187,400 200,000 987,400 77% 83% 9% 9% New Mexico . . . 207,000 201,000h 201,000 0 0 0 . . . -3 New Yorki 4,000,000 3,812,100 4,123,400 547,800 3,575,600 82 88 -5 8 North Carolina 307,800 432,800 529,800 70,500 459,300 83 87 41 22 North Dakota 179,500 202,000 212,900 158,700 54,200 21 25 13 5

Ohio 1,641,300 2,315,700 2,444,400 1,624,400 820,000 25% 34% 41% 6% Oklahoma . . . 500,000 600,000 240,000 360,000 33 60 . . . 20 Oregon 337,600 548,500 661,800 0 661,800 100 100 63 21 Pennsylvania 1,053,300 1,265,800 1,414,500 0 1,414,500 39 100 20 12 Puerto Rico . . . 45,400 64,100 0 64,100 100 100 . . . 45

Rhode Island . . . 156,900 186,700 0 186,700 100% 100% . . . 19% South Carolina 383,900 572,900 695,900 66,700 629,200 87 90 49% 21 South Dakota 150,000 144,000j 125,000 54,500 70,500 0 56 -6 -13 Tennessee . . . 500,000 590,000 425,000 165,000 0 28 . . . 18 Texas 3,001,000 3,789,500 4,277,700 0 4,277,700 99 100 26 13

Utah 226,300 430,200 325,000k 0 325,000 77% 100% 90% -25%l Vermont 100,000 118,000 130,000 130,000 0 0 0 18 10 Virginia 570,000 744,000 874,500 258,600 615,900 56 70 31 18 Virgin Islands ...... 11,300 11,300 0 . . . 0 ...... Washington 275,000 474,100 643,300 0 643,300 100 100 72 36

West Virginia 192,100 650,000 750,000 750,000 0 0% 0% 238% 15% Wisconsin 371,600 491,000 574,800 181,500 393,300 55 68 32 17 Wyoming 52,100 62,000 67,100 0 67,100 84 100 19 8

Note: The numbers reported are results of estimates. . . . Not available. Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100. Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number. Numbers reported in the “Total” and “Automated file” columns include subjects whose records are partially automated, but do not include the master name index.

Page 116 ¥ Appendix 11 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Explanatory Notes for Table 2

The notes below expand on the data in Table 2 The explanatory information was provided by the respondent.

aThis figure does not include the District of Columbia, Mississippi, New Mexico, fDecrease in total files is the result of excluding traffic files which were assumed Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, Tennessee and the Virgin Islands for included in the 1989 figure. which 1984 data was not reported. It also does not include Nevada which did not have a repository in 1984. Except for Massachusetts and Vermont for which gRespondent indicated that this figure includes many records which have since corrected data was submitted, the data in this column is taken from Bureau of been purged because the records contained only non-serious offenses. Justice Statistics, Technical Report: State Criminal Records Repositories (October 1985), Table 1. The numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100. hResponse is based on more accurate information which is now available.

bThis figure does not include the Virgin Islands for which 1989 data was not iVariations in the figures for 1984, 1989 and 1992 are attributable to a five-year reported. Except for Arkansas, Massachusetts, Missouri and Puerto Rico for purge project in which 700,000 records were removed. which corrected data was submitted, the data in this column is taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of Criminal jThe number of subjects reported for 1989 included outdated misdemeanor History Information Systems (March 1991), Table 2. records which were purged when automation of the arrest data began in 1990.

cThe total number of criminal history files has decreased due to the elimination of kThe lower number in 1992 is the result of purging inactive files. deceased records and purged records. lUtah now uses only the automated criminal history file. dThe total number of criminal history files has been decreasing due to purging of old and duplicate records, as well as civil files that were erroneously given criminal identification numbers.

eThe number of manual records has decreased from 1,500,000 in 1989 due to the purging of older, inactive files.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 11 ¥ Page 117 Appendix 12

“Number of final dispositions reported to State criminal history repository, 1983, 1989 and 1992” Table 3 from Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1992

Page 118 ¥ Appendix 12 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

Table 3. Number of final dispositions reported to State criminal history repository, 1983, 1989 and 1992

Number of dispositions reported Percent change State 1983 1989 1992 1983-89 1989-92

Alabama . . . 35,000 192,000 449% Alaska 16,600 40,800 26,400 146 % -35 Arizona 59,900 112,500 112,200 88 -<1 Arkansas 4,000 7,000 18,000 75 157 California 590,000 850,000 1,011,300 44 19

Colorado 24,600a ...... Connecticut 110,300 142,900 139,800 30% -2% Delaware 20,800 74,000 92,000 256 24 District of Columbia ...... 13,600 Florida 171,300 110,000 173,400 -36 58

Georgia . . . 260,000 . . . Hawaii 21,800 54,800 56,000 151% 2% Idaho ...... 20,000 11 Illinois . . . 135,000 149,400 Indiana 30,900 20,000 44,600 -35 123

Iowa . . . 23,000 . . . Kansas 24,700 28,900 41,300 17% 43% Kentucky 25,200 6,000 . . . -76 Louisiana 19,500 30,000 21,100 54 -30 Maine 15,000 30,000 27,800b 100 -7

Maryland . . . 436,600 500,100 14% Massachusetts ...... 270,000 Michigan 54,700 . . . 307,400c Minnesota 24,000 45,000 103,000 88% 129 Mississippi ......

Missouri ...... Montana . . . 9,600 . . . Nebraska 16,200 12,400 25,900 -24% 109% Nevada . . . 20,000 29,700 48 New Hampshire 32,200 ......

New Jersey 95,600 200,000 250,000 109% 25% New Mexico . . . 2,600 9,800 277 New York . . . 443,000 500,000 13 North Carolina 50,000 60,000 65,000 20 8 North Dakota 2,300 4,000 6,200 74 55

Ohio 40,400 65,000 . . . 61% Oklahoma ...... 15,000 Oregon 50,400 ...... Pennsylvania 56,600 74,200 219,000 31 195% Puerto Rico ......

Rhode Island ...... South Carolina 62,400a ...... South Dakota ...... Tennessee ...... Texas 113,100 ......

Utah 20,000 ...... Vermont . . . 18,700 . . . Virginia 104,400 141,600 228,100 36% 61% Virgin Islands ...... Washington 41,800 ......

West Virginia 12,800 38,000 6,000 197% -84%d Wisconsin 49,000 58,800 90,800 20 54 Wyoming 13,700 6,000 9,000 -56 50

Note: Final dispositions include release by the Repositories (October 1985), Table 3. The data in bSince 1989, courts have noted a decrease in police without charging, decline to proceed by the column for 1989 is taken from Bureau of Justice caseload, although Uniform Crime Reports show an prosecutor, or final trial court disposition. Numbers Statistics, Criminal Justice Information Policy: increase in crime. reported are the results of estimates. Numbers have Survey of Criminal History Information Systems cThe number reported is atypical due to a records been rounded to the nearest 100. Percentages have (March 1991), Table 3. improvement project which has resulted in a higher been rounded to the nearest whole number. Except . . . Not available. number of dispositions during this period. for Maine, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and a d Virginia for which corrected data was submitted, the The figure represents the number of dispositions The number of reported dispositions has decreased data in the column for 1983 is taken from Bureau of during the fiscal year (July-June) rather than the due to personnel shortages. Justice Statistics, Technical Report: State Criminal calendar year 1983. Records

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 12 ¥ Page 119 Appendix 13

“Automation of master name index and criminal history file, 1989 and 1992” Table 4 from Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1992

Page 120 ¥ Appendix 13 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

Table 4. Automation of master name index and criminal history file, 1989 and 1992

Prior manual record Master name index Criminal history file is automated if offender is automated is automated is re-arrested State 1989 1992 1989 1992 1989 1992

Alabama Yes Yes Partial Yes Yes Alaska Yes Yes Partial Partial Yes Yes Arizona Yes Yes Partial Partial Yes Yes Arkansas Partial Partiala No Partial Yes California Yes Yes Partial Partial No No

Colorado Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Connecticut Yes Yes Partial Partial Yes Yes Delaware Partial Yes Partial Partial Nob Nob District of Columbia Partial Partialc No Partial Nob Florida Yes Yes Partial Yes Yes

Georgia Yes Yes Yes Yes Hawaii Yes Yes Yes Yes Nob Idaho Yes Yes Yes Partiald Yes Illinois Partial Yes Partial Partial Yes Yes Indiana Yes Partiale Partial Partial Yes Yes

Iowa Yes Yes Partial Partial Yes Yes Kansas Yes Yes Partial Partial No Yes Kentucky Partial Partialf Partial Partial Yes Yes Louisiana Yes Yes Partial Partial Yes Yes Maine No Partialg No No No

Maryland Yes Yes Partial Partial . . . Nob Massachusetts Yes Yesh Partial Yes Yes Yes Michigan Yes Yes Yes Yes Minnesota Yes Yes Partial Partial No Nob Mississippi No Partial No Yes No

Missouri Yes Yes Partial Partial Yes Yes Montana Yes Yes Yes Yes Nebraska Partial Partiali Partial Partial Yes Yes Nevada Yes Yes Yes Yes New Hampshire Yes Yes Partial Partial Yes Yes

New Jersey Yes Yes Partial Partial Yes Yes New Mexico Yes Yes No No No No New York Yes Yes Partial Partial Yes Yes North Carolina Yes Yes Partial Partial Yes Yes North Dakota Partial Partialj Partial Partial Yes Yes

Ohio Partial Partialk Partial Partial No No Oklahoma Yes Yes Partial Partial Yes Yes Oregon Yes Yes Yes Yes Pennsylvania Yes Yes Partial Yes Yes Yes Puerto Rico Yes Yes Yesl Yesl . . .

Rhode Island Yes Yes Yes Yes South Carolina Yes Yes Partial Partial Yes Yes South Dakota Yes Yes Partial Partial Yes Yes Tennessee Partial Partialm No Partial Yes Texas Yes Yes Partial Yes Yes Yes

Utah Yes Yes Partial Yes Yes Yes Vermont Yes Yes No No Virginia Yes Yes Partial Partial Yes Yes Virgin Islands NA NAn . . . No Washington Yes Yes Yes Yes

West Virginia No No No No Wisconsin Yes Yes Partial Partial Yes Yes Wyoming Yes Yes Partial Yes Yes Yes

Note: Except for Puerto Rico for which additional . . . Not available. information has been submitted, the data in the columns for 1989 is taken from Bureau of Justice NA Not applicable. Statistics, Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of Criminal History Information Systems (March 1991), Table 4.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 13 ¥ Page 121 Explanatory Notes for Table 4

The notes below expand on the data in Table 4. The explanatory information was provided by the respondent.

aAll automated records and approximately 50% of the manual records are iAdding all records onto the automated MNI is in process. contained in an automated master name index (MNI).

bOnly the new arrest information is automated. jOnly those with a date of birth of 1940 and later are included in the automated MNI. cTraffic and misdemeanor cases are not included in the automated MNI. kThe automated MNI contains all arrest subjects since 1972. dA backlog of arrest cards for second/subsequent arrests is awaiting entry onto the automated criminal history file. lAutomated file was initiated in 1987. It contains only felonies and related misdemeanors. eMore arrest information is being placed in the MNI than in 1989. New information is current, but adding the additional information to the prior MNI mRespondent is undertaking an on-going data entry program to fully automate entries has not been completed. the MNI.

fThe manual file is not in the automated MNI. nThe Virgin Islands Record Bureau does not have a MNI; only a manual criminal history file is maintained. gApproximately 20,000 names, name derivatives and aliases have been entered into a temporary, abbreviated automated MNI; however, the MNI is not usable at this time for a name search.

hThere are 760,000 records that are automated; however, a backlog consisting of 80,000 records are not yet on the MNI.

Page 122 ¥ Appendix 13 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 14

“Arrest records with fingerprints, 1989 and 1992” Table 6 from Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1992

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 14 ¥ Page 123

Table 6. Arrest records with fingerprints, 1989 and 1992

Number of arrest Quality of fingerprint submissions Percent of arrest fingerprint cards Percent of arrest fingerprint Percent of returned events in criminal submitted to cards returned by State fingerprints history files which State criminal Percent criminal history resubmitted and are fingerprint history repository change, repository as unacceptable accepted supported State 1989 1992 1989-92 1989 1992 1989 1992 1989 1992

Total 6,012,400 6,255,800 4%

Alabama 292,900 197,200 -33% 4% 3% 0% 0% 100% 99%a Alaskab 15,900 12,000 -25 18-20 0c 0075d39 Arizona 101,900 110,000 8431. . .100100 Arkansas 23,000 32,400 41 32110100100 California 1,000,000 1,100,000 10 0 0 100 100e

Colorado 137,000 130,700 -5%f 8-15% 3% 0% 0-1% 100% 100% Connecticut 97,100 114,000 17 <1 1 0 0 75g 100 Delaware 40,000 50,000 25 <1 0 0 95h 90i District of Columbiaj 10,000k 42,700 327 1 0 95l 100 Florida 585,400 507,000m -13 6 0-1 25 30-50 100 100

Georgia 330,000 346,500 5% 4% 1% 0% 0-5% 100% 100% Hawaii 52,700 52,600 -<1 . . . 0 . . . 98n 100 Idaho 27,300 28,200 3 2 0 10 100 100 Illinois 200,300 404,800 102 0 0 100 100 Indiana 46,400 52,300 13 15 40 5 10 100 100

Iowa 30,000 47,300 58% 7% 2% <1% 0% 100% 100% Kansas 46,800 62,100 33 0 0 . . . 70-75o 0-65 Kentucky 22,500 41,300 84 10-15 0p 90-95 98 100 Louisiana 179,000 ...... 10 5q 90 3q 100 100 Maine 6,500 7,300 12 <1 0-1 50 50 30r 30

Maryland 103,000 105,300 -31% 0% 1-2% . . . 100% 100% Massachusetts 50,000-55,000 60,000 9-20 5-10 5 . . .s 15% 0t 0 Michigan 116,800 124,100 6 0 0 100 100 Minnesota 26,500 35,600 34 3 2-3 <1% 50 100 100 Mississippi 9,000 8,400 -7 50 . . . 75 . . . 100 100

Missouri 92,000 91,900 -<1% 10% 0-1% 0% 0% 100% 100% Montana 12,000 26,000 117 5 0u 1 100 100 Nebraska 13,700 18,500 35 25 10 1 0 100 100 Nevada 36,300 53,700 48 71125100100 New Hampshire 9,300 ...... 0 ...... 25-35v 50

New Jersey 145,700 123,300 -15%w 8% 2% 4% 50% 100% 100% New Mexico 26,200 33,600 28 1 6 5 1 98 100 New York 520,100 496,500x -5 <5 0-5 100 100 90 99 North Carolina 63,200 75,000 19 5 5 10 10 100 100 North Dakota 5,000 7,000 40 10 10 0 0 100 100

Ohio 114,500 140,900 23% 5% 5% 1% 100% 100% Oklahoma 60,000 59,500 -<1 17 8 10 . . . 100 100 Oregon 92,100 106,000 15 <1 . . . <1 . . . 100 100 Pennsylvania 166,700 168,100 1 11 0 75 100 100 Puerto Ricob ...... 0

Rhode Island 30,000 ...... 1% ...... 100% 100% South Carolina 154,400 161,900 5% 5 1 2% 0% 100 100 South Dakota 17,600 20,000 14 5-7 0y <1 100 100 Tennessee 75,000 90,000 20 5 12 25 1-2 100 100 Texas 398,400 450,000 13 0 0 100 100

Utah 50,200 53,500 7% 0% 5% . . . 100% 100% Vermontb 9,000 7,000 -22 35-45 30 20% 10 35-40z 20aa Virginia 110,000 134,100 22 20 1 90 5 100 100 Virgin Islands . . . 300 ...... 3 . . . 0 . . . 100 Washington 131,600 160,600 22 5 2 3 . . . 100 100

West Virginia 37,200 ...... 5% . . . 1% . . . 100% 100% Wisconsin 78,600 96,500 23% . . . 13% ...... 100 100 Wyoming 11,100 10,100 -9 0 1 0% 100 100

Page 124 ¥ Appendix 14 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Explanatory Notes for Table 6

The notes below expand on the data in Table 6. The explanatory information was provided by the respondents.

Note: Percentages and numbers reported are results of estimates. Numbers have kFigure is for fiscal year 1989 rather than calendar year 1989. been rounded to the nearest 100. Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number. The total arrest fingerprint cards submitted to State criminal lArrest information is reported by hard copies of the arrest report. history repositories in 1989 and in 1992 was calculated using the mid-point of the range where a range appears in the underlying data. Except as noted in the mRepository no longer receives fingerprint cards for non-serious charges. explanatory notes, arrest information is reported to all State criminal history repositories by fingerprint cards only. nArrest information is reported by terminal.

Except for Maryland and Wisconsin for which corrected data was submitted, the oArrest information is reported by fingerprint cards, terminal, final dispositions, data in the columns for 1989 is taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal FBI abstracts, and other documents. Justice Information Policy: Survey of Criminal History Information Systems (March 1991), Table 6. pApproximately 50% of the fingerprints received are unacceptable; however, none are returned. Approximately 40% do get re-submitted. . . . Not available. qThe practice of returning most unacceptable fingerprints has been discontinued a A change in procedure now allows the use of a court disposition as an arrest due to the low rate of resubmissions. This percentage is for agencies which have document when no arrest fingerprint card is received. persons in custody or under supervision, i.e., the Department of Corrections and Probation and Parole. bState does not have a legal requirement that fingerprints and arrest data for all felony arrests must be submitted to the State criminal history repository. rApproximately 70% of all persons charged with a criminal offense are summoned to appear in court. In 1987, the fingerprint law was changed to provide that cThe State repository retains all fingerprint cards. Approximately 20% of the persons being summoned instead of arrested are to be fingerprinted. Prior to the cards submitted are of such poor quality that they are not entered into the change, the law mandated that a person had to be "in custody charged with the automated fingerprint identification system (AFIS), but they are retained as manual commission of a crime" to be fingerprinted. Training is on-going to bring the paper cards. submission rate into compliance. dArrest information is reported by fingerprint cards, terminal, and court sResubmissions are rare. judgments. tAlthough arrests are fingerprint-supported, the arrests are not linked to the case eAll disseminated arrests are fingerprint-based, with the exception of in-house cycle; therefore, the criminal history file is not fingerprint-supported. bookings at the California Department of Corrections (CDC). Those bookings are based on a hook-up to the original fingerprint submitted by CDC. Dummy arrests uThe repository is no longer returning unacceptable fingerprints. are not disseminated and are considered statistical data only, not criminal history data. vArrest information is reported by fingerprint cards and court abstracts. fDue to resource constraints, submission of certain fingerprints have been wThe decrease in fingerprint cards submitted was due to a decrease in criminal discouraged; these include subsequent traffic arrests from the same agency arrests. (driving under the influence, hit and run, vehicular homicide excepted), and failure to appear and/or contempt of court when fingerprints were submitted for the xThe 1992 figure reflects a decrease in arrests. original charges. yApproximately 8% of the fingerprints submitted are unacceptable, but none are gArrest information is reported on fingerprint cards and on uniform arrest reports returned; a jacket is created to store the fingerprint card. which may not include fingerprints. zArrest information is reported on an arrest/custody form which need not be hArrest information is reported by fingerprint cards and criminal summonses. accompanied by fingerprints. iIn some cases of minor offenses, State law and/or policy does not require aaResponse is based on the results of an audit. information to be supported by fingerprints; information is entered from criminal summonses that are not supported by fingerprints. The decrease in the percent of arrest events in the criminal history file from 1989 is the result of more accurate figures based on a recent data quality audit. jThe Metropolitan Police Department also serves as the central repository for criminal records for the District of Columbia; fingerprinting, therefore, is performed by the Police Department/repository.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 14 ¥ Page 125 Appendix 15

“Notice to State criminal history repository of release of arrested persons without charging, 1989 and 1992” Table 7 from Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1992

Page 126 ¥ Appendix 15 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

Table 7. Notice to State criminal history repository of release of arrested persons without charging, 1989 and 1992

If an arrestee is not Percent of fingerprint charged after submission of submissions for which fingerprints, State law requires repository is notified that notification of repository arrestee has not been charged State 1989 1992 1989 1992

Alabama Yes Yes <1% 1% Alaska No No Arizona No Yes . . . Arkansas No No <1 California Yes Yes ......

Colorado Yes Yes 10% . . . Connecticut No No Delaware No No District of Columbiaa Florida No No . . .

Georgia Yes Yes 100% . . . Hawaii Yes Yes 90+ 99% Idaho Yes Yes ...... Illinois Yes Yes 0 . . . Indiana Yes Yes 50 . . .

Iowa Yes Yes . . . 98% Kansas Yes Yes ...... Kentucky No Yes . . . Louisiana No No Maine Yes Yes <1% 3

Maryland Yes Yes ...... Massachusetts No No Michiganb Yes . . . Minnesota Yes Yes 80% 80% Mississippi No No 10

Missouri No No Montana Yes Yes . . . Nebraska Yes Yes 10% 40% Nevada Yes Yes 90 80 New Hampshire No No

New Jersey No No New Mexico No No New York No Yes . . . North Carolinab No No North Dakota Yes Yes ......

Ohio No No Oklahoma No No Oregon No No Pennsylvania Yes Yes . . . Puerto Rico No No . . .

Rhode Island No No South Carolina No No 75% South Dakota Yes Yes 1 Tennessee No No . . . Texas No Yes . . .

Utah No No Vermont Yes Yesc 100%d Virginia No No Virgin Islands . . . No Washington No Yes . . .

West Virginia Yes Yes 60% . . . Wisconsin Yes Yes ...... Wyoming Yes Yes 60 80%

Note: Percentages reported are results of estimates. Percentages have been bPolice must release or charge an individual before sending fingerprints to the rounded to the nearest whole number. Except for Florida and Puerto Rico for repository. which corrected data was received, the data in the columns for 1989 is taken from c Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of Although the requirement exists, it is not enforced. Criminal Information Systems (March 1991), Table 7. dThe repository receives arraignment reports on all arraignments from the courts. . . . Not available. If no arraignment is received within six months, the repository contacts the arresting agency. aBoth the fingerprinting and the filing of charges are performed at the same unit. Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 15 ¥ Page 127 Appendix 16

“Average number of days to process arrest data submitted to State criminal history repository, 1989 and 1992” Table 12 from Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1992

Page 128 ¥ Appendix 16 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

Table 12. Average number of days to process arrest data submitted to State criminal history repository, 1989 and 1992

Average number of days Average number of days between receipt between arrest and receipt of fingerprints and entry of data into: Backlog of entering data of arrest data and fingerprints Master name index Criminal history database into criminal history database State 1989 1992 1989 1992 1989 1992 1989 1992

Alabama 7 1 0 3 5a 35aNo No Alaska 14 15b 715715bNo No Arizona 1 7 14c 17 11d 17 11d No No Arkansas 30 5 60 30 60 30 Yese Yesf California 2 1 25-30g 15-20 60h 15-20 72h Noi Yesj

Colorado 7 10 2 1-2 2 . . .k No Yesj Connecticut 7 10 7 60l 760lNo Yesm Delaware 2-3 5 2-3 2-3 . . . 0-1 No No District of Columbia <1 < 1 <1 1 NAn 1 No Yeso Florida 3-5 3-10 30 30 30 30 Yesp Yesq

Georgia 3-4 2 252 1 252 1 Yes No Hawaii 7 7-30 7 1 7 1 No No Idaho 6 30r 7 5 7 5 No Yess Illinois 1-5 10t 1 . . . 1 . . . No Yesu Indiana 7 7 60 30 7-21 30-60 Yesv Yesj

Iowa 7 7 7 7 7 90w No Yesx Kansas 3-5 10y 1 . . . 1 . . . No Yesj Kentucky 14 10 2 3 2 3 No No Louisiana 7 5 365 270 365 630z Yesaa Yesbb Maine 1 4 1 4 1 1 3 3 No No

Maryland 7 6-10 3 1 60 5 Yes No Massachusetts 28 14 300 14 300 NAcc Yesdd Yesee Michigan 7 . . . 5 10ff 510ff No No Minnesota 14 28gg 14 1 14 1 No No Mississippi 21 . . . 2 . . . 2 . . . No No

Missouri 30 34hh 3 2-3 3 2-3 No No Montana ...... 1-7 . . . 1 . . . No Yesii Nebraska 3 0 7 1 3 1 3 No No Nevada 10 10 60 2 60 2 Yesjj Yeskk New Hampshire . . . 3 0 . . . 2 1-2 2 . . . No

New Jersey 7-14 14 1 1 1 1 No No New Mexico 2 1 2 0 2 2 NA NA No No New York 7 0-7 <1-14ll 0-7 <1-14ll 0-7 No Yesmm North Carolina 7 5 15-20 12 15-20 12 No Yesj North Dakota 7-10 7-10 <1 0-1 <1 0-1 No No

Ohio 14 25nn 14 10 14 35nn Nooo Yesj Oklahoma 7-14 30 5 180pp 2 180pp No Yesj Oregon 14 3-5 1-10 2 1-10 2 No No Pennsylvania 5 7 7-112 14 7-112 14 Yesqq No Puerto Rico . . . 1 . . . 5 . . . 5 . . . No

Rhode Island 30 . . . 3 . . . 3 . . . No Yesrr South Carolina 5 10ss 10 10 10 10 No No South Dakota 7-14 5-14 1 1 1 1 No No Tennessee 7-14 14 2 14 2 14 No Yesj Texas 1 4 1 4 2 2 1 4 6 No Yesrr

Utah 7-14 14 7 14tt 714tt No No Vermont 7 14-21 7-10 10 7-10 . . . Yesuu Yesj Virginia 3-5 3-5 5 2-4 5 5-7 No No Virgin Islands ...... No Washington 5-42 14 5-10 7 5-10 7 No Yesvv

West Virginia 3-10 14 3-4 3 3-4 10ww No No Wisconsin 2-3 29 14 . . . 14 . . . No Yes Wyoming 7 10 7 5-7 7 5-7 No No

Note: Numbers have been rounded to the nearest whole number. . . . Not available. The data in the columns for 1989 is taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of Criminal History Information NA Not applicable. Systems (March 1991), Table 12.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 16 ¥ Page 129 Explanatory Notes for Table 12

The notes below expand on the data in Table 12. The explanatory information was provided by the respondents.

aWorkload has increased and personnel has decreased resulting in longer amount xA change in the “unable to classify” fingerprint policy, the increased number of of time to enter data. fingerprints received and the lack of resources, specifically fingerprint technicians, have caused the backlog. bThe repository is not the usual data entry point for arrest information into the criminal history database. Arresting agencies enter the data directly; therefore, yMore accurate information is now known. arrest data is in the criminal history database prior to the receipt of the fingerprint cards. Arrest data is entered in approximately two days but is not fingerprint- zThe increase in time to enter arrest data into the database is due to the enormous supported until approximately 15 days. growth of the backlog.

cData reported is for 1991. No data is available for 1992. aaNormal processing time would be one week.

dMaster name index entries and criminal history file entries occur simultaneously. bbThe backlog has been caused by an increased workload due to growth in the Data reported is for 1991. No data is available for 1992. statutorily required applicant background processing.

eNormal processing time would be three to four days up to one week. ccArrest data is not currently entered into the court-based criminal history file.

fThe backlog has consistently averaged about one month. ddNormal processing time would be one week or less.

gIncrease in turnaround of arrest data and fingerprint submissions from the local eeThere is a backlog; however, newly received cards are processed as a priority. agency is due to lack of staff at the local agency. Both state and local agencies have experienced economic reductions. ffA more thorough analysis of the maximum processing time has been conducted resulting in a more accurate estimate for 1992. hIncrease in time is due to lack of staff and backlogs. ggResponse is based on the result of a baseline audit. iThe current processing time of 15-20 days is slower than preferred, but with the present staff and workload, this is not considered a backlog. hhFigure represents receipt time for 1991 arrests.

jBacklog is primarily due to a personnel shortage. iiDue to the obtaining of an AFIS, no data entry was done from August 1 to December 31, 1992. The backlog is being reduced rapidly and should be kInformation is entered upon request only, unless the offense is a serious felony. completed by September 1993. This procedure is being followed pending the elimination of an automated fingerprint identification system (AFIS) backlog. When the backlog is eliminated, jjThe target processing time is three days. posting should occur within 72 hours. kkArrest data received in the form of arrest fingerprint cards is entered into the lAn increase in crime has resulted in greater workloads; at the same time, there is automated, temporary criminal history record file within two days of receipt. The also a lack of personnel. names and aliases are placed in the master name index at that time. The fingerprint cards are then placed in a backlog for fingerprint search/identification processing. mArrest data on repeat offenders is entered weekly. Due to a lack of personnel, As of December 31, 1992, approximately 35,000 fingerprint cards were awaiting new arrest data is entered in about 60 days. processing.

nFingerprinting is performed at the repository. It takes approximately two weeks llArrest fingerprints for purposes of bail hearings are sent by facsimile and have to microfiche the arrest data. priority; they are entered within two hours.

oCurrently there is a two-week backlog on repeat offender cases only. mmThe repository supports a statewide facsimile network for the transmission of arrest fingerprints for persons awaiting arraignment. The network handles about pRespondent indicated that 30 days is the optimum processing time. Currently, half of the statewide arrest fingerprint volume and are typically processed and the the repository has approximately 30,000 cards which have been name searched rap sheet updated or created within two hours. Priority work is handled within and are ready for entry into the criminal history database, and approximately seven days of receipt. 15,000 cards which have not been either name searched or entered into the database. nnIncrease in time is due to heavy submissions and less personnel to accomplish the task. qThere are approximately 19,000 cards at various stages of entry. ooFirst offenders are current; processing time is two to three days. The processing rResponse is based on a recently completed data quality audit. time for offenders with prior records takes about two weeks because there are more repeat offenders and more coding is required. sAs of December 31, 1992, there was a backlog of 32,966 fingerprint arrest cards for second and subsequent arrests. ppIncrease in time is the result of a personnel shortage.

tAs a result of conducting local agency audits since 1989, the average time qqA backlog of 5,000-7,000 cards per month exists. Respondent anticipates that between arrest and receipt of fingerprint cards and arrest data at the repository has the AFIS implementation will reduce processing time to three days. been determined to be 10 days. rrA backlog of approximately one month currently exists. uRespondent anticipates that the sizeable backlog that currently exists will be resolved in 1993. ssIncrease is due to personnel cutbacks and added workload.

vThe present backlog is due to implementation of an automated fingerprint ttThe increased time is due to a backlog resulting from the increased submission identification system (AFIS) and will be worked out within a few months. of applicant cards that the repository is now required to process.

wFigure is for first arrests. The increase since 1989 in the average days to enter uuNormal processing time would be one to two days. arrest data into the criminal history database is due to loss of personnel, especially fingerprint technicians, and to an increase in the number of fingerprint cards vvA backlog of approximately 31,400 misdemeanor upgrade cards exists. received. wwIncrease is due to an increase in submission of data.

Page 130 ¥ Appendix 16 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 17

“Average number of days to process disposition data submitted to State criminal history repository, 1989 and 1992” Table 13 from Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1992

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 17 ¥ Page 131

Table 13. Average number of days to process disposition data submitted to State criminal history repository, 1989 and 1992

Average number of days Average number of days between between final trial court receipt of final trial court disposition Backlog of entering data disposition and receipt of data and entry of data into database into criminal history database State 1989 1992 1989 1992 1989 1992

Alabama 7 90a 35bNo No Alaska 14 35c 221cNo Yesd Arizona 5 7 2 4 4 5 2 4 Noe No Arkansas 60 40 60 2 Yesf No California 3 0 0-120g 40 80h Noi Yesj

Colorado 42 . . .k 1. . .kNo Yesj Connecticut 14-28 14-28 42-84 42-84 . . . Yesj Delaware 1 4 1 4 NAl NAl Nom Yesn District of Columbia NA . . . 2 1 5-7 . . . Yesj Florida 180 45 180 . . .o Yesp Yeso

Georgia 3 0 1 0 952 1 Yes Yesq Hawaii . . . 3 0 NA 1 0 No Yesj Idaho 35 148r 730 . . . Yes Yess Illinois . . . 40-45 1 . . . No Yest Indiana 30 30-60u 42 60-90 Yesv Yesj

Iowa . . . 2 0 1 4 20w No Yesj Kansas 7-14 90x 230yNo Yesj Kentucky 60-90 90 10-14 30z No Yes Louisiana 30 . . . 365 . . . Yesaa Yes Maine 1 4 1 0 1 1bb No No

Maryland 14 14 0cc 0cc No No Massachusetts 2 2 7-10 0dd No No Michigan 1-7 . . . 5 0-5 No No Minnesota 28 31ee 56 365ff Yesj Yesj Mississippigg 42-56 7-180 Yes

Missouri . . . 88hh 2-3 4-5 No No Montana ...... 2 . . . No Yesii Nebraska 365 30-60 14 30jj No Yesj Nevada 30 30 90 5 Yeskk No New Hampshire 7 30ll 1 2 No No

New Jersey 7 7 60-90 5 Yesmm Yesnn New Mexico 6 0 3 0 1 10oo No No New York NA 0-180 0l 0-180pp No Yesqq North Carolina 1 5 1 1 5 0 Noaa No North Dakota 3 0 3 0 <1 0-1 No No

Ohio 21-60 . . . 0rr 3 No No Oklahoma 14 30ss 14 30ss No No Oregon . . . 7 30-90 0 Yestt Yesuu Pennsylvania 180 180 2 0 No Yesvv Puerto Rico . . . 4 . . . 6 . . . No

Rhode Island ...... 2 . . . No Yesww South Carolina 14 10 30 10 Yeskk No South Dakota 30 30 2-3 14xx No No Tennessee 28-42 . . . 2 . . . No Yesj Texas 2 8 2 8 730 3 0 Yesyy Yeszz

Utah 180 30-60 14 7 No No Vermont 1 0 1 0 3 5 Yesaaa No Virginia 90-120 90-120 5 5 No No Virgin Islands . . . 7-90 . . . 2 . . . No Washington 60 60 28 30 No Yesj

West Virginia 20-30 30 10-15 42 Nobbb Yes Wisconsin 14 56 60-90 . . . Yesccc Yesddd Wyoming 7 20 3 7-10eee No Yesfff

Note: Numbers have been rounded to the nearest whole number. . . . Not available.

The data in the columns for 1989 is taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics, NA Not applicable. Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of Criminal History Information Systems (March 1991), Tables 12 and 13.

Page 132 ¥ Appendix 17 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Explanatory Notes for Table 13

The notes below expand on the data in Table 13. The explanatory information was provided by the respondents.

aIncreased time is the result of court backlogs. ccDispositions are by tape entry upon receipt.

bWorkload has increased and personnel has decreased resulting in a longer ddDisposition data is entered directly into the criminal history file from court period of time to enter data. terminals.

cThe 1992 estimate is based on more accurate information as a result of a baseline eeResponse is based on the result of a baseline audit. data quality assessment. ffResponse is based on the result of a baseline audit. Increased workloads and dA backlog of one week exists for misdemeanor dispositions. personnel decrease have resulted in the increase in time.

eDisposition information is held for 30 days to ensure that the arrest card is ggCourts rarely submit disposition data to the repository. received at the State criminal history repository (SCR). hhFigure is for 1991 dispositions. fNormal processing time would be two weeks; with the commencement of automation in July 1990, the backlog will be eliminated. iiDue to the obtaining of an automated fingerprint identification system (AFIS), no data entry was done from August 1 to December 31, 1992. The backlog is gIncrease in time is due to lack of staff at the local agencies. being reduced rapidly and should be completed by September 1993.

hIncrease in time is due to lack of staff. jjThe greater length of time is due to a backlog of court dispositions and an overall increase in records. iThe SCR operates under a court order to process dispositions within 90 days. Respondent indicated that with the present and foreseeable staff levels and the kkNormal processing time would be one week. volume of documents the SCR handles, 40 days is normal processing time. llIncrease in time is due to the increased volume in the courts and the reduction in jBacklog is due primarily to a personnel shortage at the repository and/or at their staff. contributing agencies. mmNormal processing time would be one to two weeks. kFinal trial court dispositions are currently not received by the repository. This is scheduled to occur electronically in 1993. Dispositions will be received weekly nnA current backlog of approximately 100,000 dispositions exists. and posted within 72 hours. ooA sampling of dispositions showed the increase in time; priorities placed on lDispositions are entered directly by the courts. work received have also contributed to the increase.

mDisposition data is current since 1988; there does exist a pre-1988 backlog. ppThe State repository is updated daily by the State Office of Court Administration for courts in large metropolitan areas; town and village courts nCourt does not enter all dispositions. remain a paper-based process.

oRepository is in the process of developing software and automation upgrades qqBacklog is due to manual records and processing of town and village court that will allow entry of historical and current dispositions. All available dispositions which was taken over by the repository from the State Office of dispositions will be entered at that time. Court Administration in 1992.

pRespondent indicated that a backlog of approximately 100,000 transactions rrData is entered the same day it is received. exists; in 1991, with the completion of automation of the courts in Florida, processing time could be reduced to four to six weeks. ssIncrease in time is due to a personnel shortage.

qCurrent dispositions are entered within 24 hours of receipt by the repository. A ttRespondent indicated that a backlog of about 35,000 dispositions currently backlog of 1986 dispositions is also being processed and will be eliminated by exists; normal processing time would be one to two days. June 30, 1993. uuBacklog is due to manually submitted dispositions that require research and rFigure is based on results of a data quality audit. verification.

sAs of December 31, 1992, there was a backlog of approximately 43,300 vvBacklog is due to rejected data from the magnetic tape that must be manually dispositions. entered.

tRespondent anticipates that the sizeable backlog that currently exists will be wwA one month backlog currently exists. resolved in 1993. xxIncrease in time is due to a change in procedure for receiving disposition data uDue to changes in personnel, timeliness of court reporting has decreased. The from the Unified Judicial System. State repository is working on an educational approach to decrease the time for receipt of court dispositions. yyRespondent indicated that significant additional funding has been received to eliminate the backlog within next year. vThe backlog is due to AFIS implementation; the normal processing time is two weeks. zzThis backlog has been significantly reduced over the past year.

wThe increase since 1989 in the average number of days between receipt of final aaaThere may be a backlog of 500-1,000 dispositions; normal processing time trial court dispositions and entry of data into the database is due to the loss of would be the same day. personnel, the increase in the number of dispositions and the increase in the number of dispositions which were returned due to insufficient information. bbbDisposition reports are held for 10-12 days to ensure that the fingerprint cards have been received and processed. xMore accurate information is now known. cccThere is a 20,000 document backlog; optimum processing time would be one yThe increase in time is due to backlogs and lack of staff. week.

zIncrease in time is due to the reduction in data entry personnel. dddFunds are currently being expended to decrease the backlog.

aaTen days would be normal processing time. eeeReduction in personnel resulted in processing delays.

bbInformation is maintained in a holding file; it is merged with the criminal record fffSome dispositions require clarification which creates a backlog. when an inquiry is received.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 17 ¥ Page 133 Appendix 18

“Procedures employed by State criminal history repository to encourage complete arrest and disposition reporting, 1992” Table 15 from Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1992

Page 134 ¥ Appendix 18 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

Table 15. Procedures employed by State criminal history repository to encourage complete arrest and disposition reporting, 1992 Lists of arrests with no dispositions generated to monitor Field Form Telephone State disposition reporting visits letters calls

Alabama X X X X Alaska Ê X X X Arizonaa ÊÊXXÊ Arkansas X X X X Ê California Ê X X Ê Ê

Colorado X X X X Ê Connecticut Ê Ê X X Ê Delaware Ê Ê X X Ê District of Columbiab Ê Floridac Ê XXX

Georgiad Ê ÊÊÊ Hawaii X Ê Ê Ê Ê Idaho Ê Ê Ê X Ê Illinois X X X X Ê Indiana Ê Ê X Ê Ê

Iowa X Ê X Ê Ê Kansase Ê XXX Kentucky Ê X X Ê Ê Louisiana Ê Ê X X Ê Mainef Ê XXX

Marylandg Ê ÊÊÊ Massachusetts X Michiganh X ÊÊÊ Ê Minnesota Ê X X X Ê Mississippi Ê

Missouri Ê X Ê X Ê Montanai Ê ÊÊXÊ Nebraska Ê X XÊ X Ê Nevadaj Ê XXX Ê New Hampshire Ê Ê X X Ê

New Jersey X X Ê X Ê New Mexico Ê Ê X X Ê New York X X X X Ê North Carolina X X X X Ê North Dakotak XXÊXÊ

Ohiol Ê XXX Oklahomam Ê XXX Oregonn Ê XÊ X Ê Pennsylvaniao XXXÊ Puerto Rico X Ê Ê X Ê

Rhode Island X Ê X Ê Ê South Carolina Ê X X X Ê South Dakota Ê Ê X X Ê Tennessee Ê Texas Ê X X X Ê

Utah Ê X X X Vermont p ÊÊXXÊ Virginiaq ÊÊXXÊ Virgin Islands Ê Ê Ê X Ê Washington X X X X Ê

West Virginiam Ê XXX Wisconsin Ê X Ê Ê Wyoming X X X X Ê

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 18 ¥ Page 135 Explanatory Notes for Table 15

The notes below expand on the data in Table 15. The explanatory information was provided by the respondents.

aPreviously used field visits have been eliminated due to funding reductions. iA new rule will be going into effect that will change the procedures employed.

bThe practice of using telephone calls has been changed; everything must now be jThe practice of generating lists of arrests with no dispositions was discontinued in written form. because the procedure was taking too much computer time to generate the report, and users experienced response time problems when the report was prepared from cThe repository also uses microfilm and microfiche. Re-instituting a procedure of the criminal history record database. generating lists of arrests for which final dispositions have not been received is under consideration. kPreviously used form letters have been replaced by personal contact.

dThe repository also employs training, publishes operational bulletins, and lThe repository also conducts seminars with court officials and requests their publishes requirements in the Georgia Crime Information Council Rules and cooperation in submitting dispositions to the repository. Superior Court Clerks’ Rules. Field visits, which were previously employed to encourage complete arrest and disposition reporting, have been discontinued due mThe repository also employs training. to lack of funding. nGenerating lists of arrests for which dispositions were not recorded and the use eThe module to generate lists of arrests for which final dispositions have not been of form letters were discontinued due to the backlog in entering disposition data recorded was activated July 1, 1993. The repository also uses audits and at the repository. communications requests to encourage complete reporting. oThe repository will also be using audits that will include surveys and field visits fThe repository also participates in the training of all new recruits at the Criminal in the future. Justice Academy. pField visits have been discontinued due to lack of staff. gThe repository also conducts work sessions with contributors and seeks their cooperative efforts in establishing better reporting procedures. qThe repository is currently developing the capability to generate computer lists of missing dispositions. hThe practice of field visits was in place from 1987 through the spring of 1992; at that time personnel who were performing the task were no longer available, and the field visits were stopped.

Page 136 ¥ Appendix 18 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 19

“Methods used to link disposition information to arrest/charge information on criminal history record, 1992” Table 16 from Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1992

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 19 ¥ Page 137

Table 16. Methods used to link disposition information to arrest/charge information on criminal history record, 1992 Unique tracking Name and number for reporting individual Unique arrest Unique charge Arrest Subject agency State subject event identifier identifier date name case number Other

Alabama*Ê XXXXXÊ Alaska X X Ê X X Ê Xa Arizona* X XÊ X X X X Ê Arkansas* X Ê Ê X X X Ê California X XÊ X X X X Ê

Colorado* Xb Xa Connecticut* Ê Ê Ê X X X Ê Delaware* X X X X X X Xc District of Columbia* X X X X X Xd Xc Florida* X X X X X X Ê

Georgia* X X Ê Ê Ê Ê Hawaii* X X X X X Ê Ê Idaho* X X Ê Ê XÊ Ê Ê Illinois Ê X Ê Ê Ê Ê Xa Indiana* X X X X X X Xd

Iowae Ê Ê Ê XXXÊ Kansas* X X Ê X XÊ X Ê Kentucky* X X X X X X Ê Louisiana Ê Ê Ê X X X Ê Maine* X X Ê X X X Ê

Maryland* X Ê X Ê Ê Ê Xf Massachusetts*g Michigan X Ê Ê Ê Ê Ê Ê Minnesota Ê Ê X Ê XÊ X Ê Mississippi* Ê Ê Ê X X X Xh

Missouri* X X XÊ X X Ê Ê Montana* Ê Xi Ê XXXÊ Nebraska* X XÊ XÊ X X XÊ Xj Nevada* Ê X X Ê Ê Ê Ê New Hampshire* X Ê Ê X X Ê Ê

New Jersey* X X X X X X Ê New Mexico X Ê X X X X Ê New York* X X X X X X Ê North Carolina X X Ê X X Ê Ê North Dakota X X Ê X X X Ê

Ohio* X X X X X X Xa Oklahoma X Ê Ê Ê Ê Ê Ê Oregon*k X X XXXXÊ Pennsylvania* X X X Ê X Ê Ê Puerto Rico* X X X Ê X X Ê

Rhode Island* X Ê Ê Ê X Ê Ê South Carolina* X X Ê X X X Ê South Dakota Ê X Ê X Xl ÊÊ Tennessee XÊ Ê Ê X X X Ê Texas*m Xm Xm Xm XX Ê Ê

Utah* X Ê Ê Ê Ê Ê Ê Vermont* X X X X X X Ê Virginia* XÊ X Ê Ê Ê Ê Ê Virgin Islands* Ê Ê Ê Ê X Ên X Washington* X X X X X X Ê

West Virginia X X Wisconsin* Ê X Ê X X X Ê Wyoming* X X X X X X Ê

Note: Repositories were asked to list all methods which may be utilized to link *Method(s) utilized by the repository for linking disposition information and disposition information. Matching of several items of information may be used to arrest/charge information also permit the linking of dispositions to particular confirm that the appropriate link is being made. Also if information of one type is charges and/or specific counts. missing, repositories may look to other types of information contained on the disposition report.

Page 138 ¥ Appendix 19 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Explanatory Notes for Table 16

The notes below expand on the data in Table 16. The explanatory information was provided by the respondents.

aCourt case number. iPending.

bThe repository uses a number constructed of the unique arrest-event identifier, jAgency ORI. the arrest date and the originating agency identifier (ORI). This replaced the computer-assigned unique tracking number previously used. kThe method for linking dispositions to particular charges applies only when there is a single count; it is not applicable for multiple counts. cCriminal Justice Information System (CJIS) case number. lThe unified court system has allowed the repository’s process control number dFingerprint verification. that is unique to the arrest event to be placed on its automated system. In the majority of cases, this tracking number works; the name serves as the backup to eThe former method used for linking disposition data was discontinued in 1992; query for state identification (SID) number, date of arrest and ORI to make the effective January 1, 1993, a new disposition tracking number was instituted. link.

fCase numbers. mPlanned system enhancement.

gPresent plans call for a unique tracking number. nDate of birth, place of birth and social security number pending.

hDate of birth and social security number.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 19 ¥ Page 139 Appendix 20

“Data quality audits of State criminal history repository, 1992” Table 20 from Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1992

Page 140 ¥ Appendix 20 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

Table 20. Data quality audits of State criminal history repository, 1992

State criminal history repository database audited Changes to Data quality Initiatives are for accuracy and improve data quality audits are planned underway to completeness within Agency which were made as a or scheduled for improve data State last 5 years performed audit result of audit† next 3 years quality†

Alabama XX Alaska X Other Agency 4, 6, 9, 10 X 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10 Arizona X Other Agency 1, 2, 11 X 1, 11 Arkansas X 1, 7, 11 California X 1, 2

Colorado X Repository X 5 Connecticut 2, 5 Delaware Xa Other Agency X 2, 5, 6 District of Columbia X Other Agency 2, 11 X 2, 5, 6, 10 Florida X 2, 11

Georgia X Other Agency X X X Hawaii X Other Agency 1, 2 X 1, 12b Idaho X Other Agency 8 8, 9 Illinois X Other Agency 1,3 X 1 1 Indiana X Other Agency

Iowa X Other Agency 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 11 X 3, 4, 5, 6, 10 Kansas X 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10 Kentucky XX Louisiana XX Mainec X11

Maryland X Other Agency 8 X 8 Massachusetts 5d Michigan X Minnesota X Other Agency 2, 6, 9, 12e Mississippi X 1, 2, 5

Missouri Xf 1 Montana X Other Agency 1 1 0 Nebraska X2 Nevada X1 New Hampshire X 1, 10

New Jersey X Other Agency 1, 2 X 1, 7, 11 New Mexico X2 New York X Other Agency, Repository 2, 6 X 1, 9, 11 North Carolina X Repository North Dakota X2

Ohio Oklahoma X2 Oregong X1 Pennsylvania X1 Puerto Rico X Repository X X 1, 3, 8, 9

Rhode Island X Repository 2 X 2 South Carolina . . . 3 South Dakota 3, 10, 11 Tennessee X Other Agency, Repository X 3, 9 Texas X Other Agency 2, 7 X 1

Utah X Other Agency X X X Vermont X Other Agency Virginia X Other Agency 3, 11, 12h 3 Virgin Islands Washington X Other Agency, Repository X X

West Virginia 2 Wisconsin X1 Wyoming 2, 3

. . . Not available. 7 Legislation † 1 Audit/audit functions/procedures 8 Plan/strategy development 2 Automation conversion/redesign/enhancements 9 Task force/advisory group establishment 3 Disposition/arrest reporting procedures/enhancements 1 0 Tracking number implementation/improvement 4 Felony flagging 1 1 Training seminars/policy and procedures manuals 5 Fingerprint card/system conversion/enhancements 1 2 Other 6 Inter-agency/local agency interface

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 20 ¥ Page 141 Explanatory Notes for Table 20

The notes below expand on the data in Table 20. The explanatory information was provided by the respondents.

aAudit has not been finalized. eUse of noncriminal justice record check fees to improve the criminal history system. bEstablishment of the Data Quality Unit. fA comprehensive outside audit of the central repository and its associated cNo formal audit has been conducted; however, all information is reviewed by reporting agencies is being planned for 1994. In-house auditing at the central specialists to ensure accuracy and completeness as part of a daily function. repository to improve data quality is being incorporated.

dThe Massachusetts criminal record improvement plan calls for the development of gRepository is currently in the process of selecting a vendor to conduct an audit fingerprint-supported criminal records. of the repository.

hHelpline implemented.

Page 142 ¥ Appendix 20 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 21

Interstate and Federal-State Compact on the Exchange of Criminal History Records for Noncriminal Justice Purposes

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 21 ¥ Page 143 Interstate and Federal-State Compact on the Exchange of Criminal History Records for Noncriminal Justice Purposes

The contracting parties solemnly (3) Bind the FBI to permit the use (c) “criminal history records” means agree: of the National Identification Index information collected by criminal and the National Fingerprint File in justice agencies on individuals ARTICLE I — FINDINGS accordance with the terms of this consisting of identifiable AND PURPOSES compact and with established system descriptions and notations of arrests, rules and procedures and to provide, detentions, indictments, information (a) Findings. The parties find in a timely fashion, Federal offender or other formal criminal charges, and that: records and records of state offenders any disposition arising therefrom, in states that are not participating as sentencing, correctional supervision, Both the Federal Bureau of record providers in the III System; and release. The term does not Investigation (FBI) and criminal include identification information history record repositories in the (4) Bind the party states to a such as fingerprint records to the states maintain fingerprint-based commitment to provide information extent that such information does records of criminal offenders. and records for the National not indicate involvement of the Through a Federal/state program Identification Index and the National individual in the criminal justice known as the Interstate Identification Fingerprint File and to provide system; Index (III), these criminal history criminal history records, in a timely records are shared and exchanged for fashion, to authorized requestors (d) “criminal history record criminal justice purposes. from other states and the Federal repository” means the executive government for noncriminal justice agency in a state designated by the This interstate and Federal-state purposes; governor or other appropriate compact is necessary to facilitate executive official or the legislature criminal history record exchanges for (5) Provide for the establishment of to perform the centralized record- noncriminal justice purposes a Compact Council to monitor keeping functions for criminal authorized by state and Federal laws. system operations and to promulgate history records and services in the It will allow state and Federal records system rules and procedures state; to be provided to Federal agencies necessary to ensure the effective and other state agencies that will use operation of the III System for (e) “criminal justice” means the records according to Federal and noncriminal justice purposes; and performance of any of the following the receiving states’ laws. activities: detection, apprehension, (6) Bind the compact parties to detention, pretrial release, post-trial (b) Purposes. The purposes of adhere to system standards release, prosecution, adjudication, this compact are to: concerning record dissemination and correctional supervision, or use, response times, system rehabilitation of accused persons or (1) Insure that this compact shall security, data quality, and other duly criminal offenders. The not, in any manner, interfere with established standards. administration of criminal justice the management and control of the shall include criminal identification Director of the FBI over the National ARTICLE II — activities and the collection, storage, Crime Information Center (NCIC) DEFINITIONS and dissemination of criminal and the FBI’s collection and history records. State and Federal dissemination of criminal history As used in this compact: Inspector General Offices are records and the advisory function of included; the NCIC Advisory Policy Board; (a) “Attorney General” means the Attorney General of the United (f) “criminal justice agency” means (2) Provide the legal frame work for States; (1) courts; (2) state and Federal the establishment of a cooperative Inspector General officers; and (3) a Federal-state system for the interstate (b) “compact officer” means the government agency or any subunit and Federal-state exchange of official designated by the Director of thereof which performs the criminal history records for the FBI and the official designated by administration of criminal justice noncriminal justice use; a party state to administer the pursuant to a statute or executive provisions of this compact; order, and which allocates a substantial part of its annual budget to the administration of criminal justice;

Page 144 ¥ Appendix 21 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report (g) “criminal justice services” (n) “National Fingerprint File” (u) “sealed” record information means services authorized by means a system of fingerprints or means that portion of a record which executive order, Federal law, or the other uniquely personal identifying by court order or by operation of a Attorney General whereby an information furnished on adult Federal or state statute applicable to authorized agency is notified when criminal offenders or juvenile particular offenders or classes of there is either a request or offenders maintained by the FBI to offenders, may not be disseminated information received that corresponds provide positive identification of for particular purposes except as to a particular record; record subjects indexed in the III specified in a court order or by System; statute; and (h) “criterion offense” means any felony crime, or a misdemeanor (o) “National Identification Index” (v) “state” means the United States, crime that is not included on the list means an index maintained by the any state, territory or possession of of nonserious offenses published FBI consisting of names, identifying the United States, the District of periodically by the FBI; numbers, and other descriptive Columbia, and the Commonwealth information relating to record of Puerto Rico. (i) “direct access” means access to subjects whose criminal history the National Identification Index by records are available for ARTICLE III — computer terminal or other dissemination by means of the III ADMINISTRATION OF automated means without the system; COMPACT PROVISIONS assistance of or intervention by any other party or agency; (p) “national indices” means the (a) FBI Responsibilities National Identification Index and the (j) “executive order” means an order National Fingerprint File; (1) In response to requests made for of the President of the United States authorized noncriminal justice or the chief executive official of a (q) “noncompact state” means a purposes, and subject to applicable state which has the force of law and state that is participating in the III privileges, the FBI will provide which is published in a manner System as a record-providing state criminal history records of Federal permitting regular public access but has not executed the compact; offenders maintained in the Federal thereto; offender file and of state offenders in (r) “noncriminal justice” means the states not participating as record (k) “FBI” means the Federal Bureau authorized use according to Federal providers in the III System, to the of Investigation; or state law of criminal history extent that such information is records for other than criminal maintained in FBI files and its (l) “Federal offender file” means a justice purposes to include but not provision is otherwise in accordance criminal history record file be limited to employment suitability with law. maintained by the FBI relating to or licensing determinations, persons arrested for or charged with immigration and naturalization (2) The FBI NCIC offenses under the laws of the United matters, and national security telecommunications network shall States; clearances; provide the facilities for the exchange of criminal history records (m) “Interstate Identification Index (s) “party state” means a state that for both criminal justice purposes System” or “III System” means the has executed this compact; and noncriminal justice purposes. cooperative Federal-state system for The FBI shall insure that the the exchange of criminal history (t) “positive identification” means a exchange of these records for records including the National determination, based upon a criminal justice purposes has Identification Index, the National comparison of fingerprints or other priority over the exchange for Fingerprint File and, to the extent of equally reliable biometric noncriminal justice purposes. their participation in such system, identification techniques, that the the criminal history record subject of a record search is the same (3) Nothing in this compact shall repositories of the states and the person as the subject of a prior obligate the FBI to expend funds FBI; criminal history record or records beyond its congressional indexed in the III System; appropriations.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 21 ¥ Page 145 (b) State Responsibilities (2) Administration of compact ARTICLE V — RECORD provisions shall not reduce the level REQUEST PROCEDURES (1) The criminal history record of service available to authorized repository in each party state noncriminal justice users on the (a) Governmental or (referred to hereafter as the “state effective date of this compact. nongovernmental agencies authorized repository” or “repository”) will by approved state statutes to obtain have the responsibility for ARTICLE IV — criminal history records for administering the provisions of this AUTHORIZED RECORD noncriminal justice purposes shall compact within the state. The USERS submit requests through the criminal repository will provide the state’s history record repository in the state III-indexed criminal history records (a) Criminal justice agencies and in which they are located. Federal for interstate noncriminal justice other governmental or officials and other organizations or exchange purposes; will ensure that nongovernmental agencies will be officials authorized by Federal statute compact provisions and duly provided criminal history records for or executive order to obtain records established system standards and noncriminal justice purposes for noncriminal justice purposes procedures are complied with in the authorized by Federal statute or shall submit requests through the state; and will regulate the in-state executive order, or by state statutes FBI or through the repository in the use of records received by means of authorizing national record checks state in which they are located, if the the III System from the FBI or from which have been approved by the repository consents to process other party states. The chief Attorney General. When such a fingerprint submissions. administrator of the repository (or a statute or executive order authorizes Noncriminal justice agencies shall designee who is employed full-time an agency to have access to FBI not be permitted to have direct access to act in this capacity) will be the criminal history records, it shall be to the National Identification Index compact officer for the state. construed by party states as and shall not be entitled to obtain authorization to obtain state criminal criminal history records directly from (2) Each party state will participate history records. repositories in the other states. in the National Fingerprint File. (b) In response to authorized (b) Nothing provided herein shall (3) Each party state will provide and noncriminal justice requests, the FBI interfere in any manner with access maintain the necessary and party states will provide all to records by direct access when telecommunications links and related unsealed criminal history record permitted by the Security Clearance equipment necessary to the services information relating to criterion Information Act. set forth in this compact. offenses for record subjects indexed in the III System. (c) Applicant fingerprints or other (c) Compliance with System approved forms of positive Standards (c) Records obtained under this identification will be submitted with compact may be used only for the all requests for criminal history Party states and the FBI will comply purpose for which they were records for noncriminal justice with duly established system requested and only by the requesting purposes. standards and procedures concerning agency or other authorized agency record dissemination and use, that obtains the record(s) for an (d) State repositories and the FBI response times, data quality, system official purpose. Compact officers may charge fees for processing security, and other aspects of system shall establish intrastate procedures applications and searching their files operation. and measures consistent with for noncriminal justice purposes. If applicable system policies and such a file search positively (d) Maintenance of Record standards, to ensure that records are identifies the record subject, Services used only by authorized officials for additional III-indexed information authorized purposes and to require relating to the record subject may be (1) Use of the III System for that subsequent record requests are obtained at no cost from other noncriminal justice purposes made to obtain more current records compact parties. The FBI and party authorized in this compact shall be for subsequent purposes. state repositories will honor positive managed so as not to diminish the identifications made by other level of criminal justice services or compact parties. services available for criminal justice purposes.

Page 146 ¥ Appendix 21 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report (e) If a state repository cannot (b) There is established a Compact (3) Two at-large members; one to positively identify the subject of a Council which shall have the represent local criminal justice record request made for noncriminal authority to establish rules and agencies, and one to represent justice purposes, the request, procedures governing the use of the local/state noncriminal justice together with fingerprints or other III System for noncriminal justice agencies, based on the approved identifying information purposes, not in conflict with FBI recommendation of the Compact will be forwarded to the FBI for a administration of III for criminal Council Chairman; search of the national indices. The justice purposes. The Council shall FBI may charge a fee for such a file continue in existence so long as the (4) One member who is a current search. If the FBI positively compact remains in effect. The member of the Advisory Policy identifies the subject as having a III- Council shall be located for Board of the National Crime indexed record or records, the FBI administrative, budgetary, and Information Center, based upon the will so advise the state repository staffing purposes within the FBI. recommendation of the membership that submitted the request. The For purposes of annual budget of the Advisory Policy Board; and repository will then be entitled to requests, the Council shall be obtain the additional criminal history included within the budget of the (5) One member who is a current record information from the FBI or United States Department of Justice. employee of the FBI, nominated by other state repositories at no cost. The Council shall be organized and the Director of the FBI. State repositories may collect and its first meeting shall be held as account for FBI file-search fees, soon as practicable after the effective (d) The Chairman of the Council pursuant to agreements consistent date of the compact. shall be a member of and elected by with system standards and FBI the members of the Council. The policies. (c) The Council shall consist of 15 Chairman shall be a compact officer members whose appointment by the unless there is no compact officer on (f) Compact officers will establish Attorney General shall be in the Council who is willing to serve, necessary procedures and measures to accordance with the below criteria: in which case, the Chairman may be ensure that out-of-state records an at-large member. The Chairman obtained for noncriminal justice (1) Nine members, each to serve for shall serve a term of two years and purposes are disseminated and used two-year terms, selected from the may be re-elected to only one only for purposes authorized by law duly designated compact officers of additional consecutive two-year term. in the receiving state. These party states, based upon the procedures must ensure that record collective recommendation of the (e) The Council shall meet at least entries that may not legally be used compact officers of all party states. once each year. The meetings shall for a particular noncriminal justice In the absence of the requisite be open to the public and appropriate purpose will be deleted and, if no number of compact officers available public notice shall be given to authorized information remains, an to serve, the chief administrators of ensure that all interested persons are appropriate “no record” response will the central criminal history notified of such meetings prior be communicated to the requesting repositories of noncompact states thereto. Staff support for Council official. The FBI will establish shall be eligible to serve on an meetings and other support services procedures requiring state criminal interim basis. Persons who are not for the Council shall be provided by history record repositories in compact officers shall be appointed the FBI. noncompact states to execute user to the Council only to the extent agreements requiring them to that there are not sufficient compact (f) The Council shall have the establish procedures to comply with officers who are willing to serve; authority to request from staff the provisions of this subsection. members assigned to the Council or (2) Two at-large members; one to from other officials of the FBI any ARTICLE VI — represent Federal criminal justice reports, studies, statistics, or other ESTABLISHMENT OF agencies, and one to represent information or materials permitted COMPACT COUNCIL Federal noncriminal justice agencies, by law necessary to enable it to nominated by the Director of the perform its duties under this (a) Nothing in this compact shall FBI; compact, and such assistance or obligate the FBI to expend funds information shall be provided within beyond its congressional a reasonable time. appropriations.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 21 ¥ Page 147 (g) The Chairman may establish ARTICLE IX — technical or other committees as SEVERABILITY necessary and may prescribe the membership, responsibilities and The provisions of this compact shall duration of such committees. be severable, and if any phrase, clause, sentence or provision of this (h) Members of the Council (other compact is declared to be contrary to than a member from the FBI or any the constitution of any participating at-large member who may be a state, or of the United States, or the Federal official or employee) shall applicability thereof to any not, by virtue of such membership, government, agency, person or be deemed to be, for any purpose circumstance is held invalid, the other than to effect this compact, validity of the remainder of this officers or employees of the United compact and the applicability thereof States as defined at Title 5, United to any government, agency, person States Code, Sections 2104-2105, or or circumstances shall not be affected to become entitled by reason of thereby. If this compact shall be Council membership to any held contrary to the constitution of compensation or benefit payable or any state participating therein, the made available by the United States compact shall remain in full force solely and directly to its officers or and effect as to the remaining states employees. and in full force and effect as to the state affected as to all severable ARTICLE VII — matters. EXECUTION OF COMPACT ARTICLE X — This compact shall become effective ADJUDICATION OF immediately upon its execution by DISPUTES two or more states as between those states. Upon the subsequent The Council shall have original execution of the compact by jurisdiction concerning this compact additional states, it shall become regarding interpretations of the effective as between these states and compact, system policy or standards, states that have previously executed and disputes or controversies it. When executed, the compact between party states. The Council shall have the full force and effect of shall hold a hearing concerning the law within the executing above at any regularly scheduled jurisdictions. The form of execution meeting and will only render a shall be in accordance with the laws decision based upon a majority vote of the respective jurisdiction. of its members. The FBI shall exercise immediate and necessary ARTICLE VIII — action to preserve the integrity of the RENUNCIATION III System, maintain system policy and standards, and to prevent abuses, This compact shall continue in force until the Council shall hold a and remain binding upon each party hearing on such matters. Party state until renounced by it. states may appeal the decisions of Renunciation from this compact the Council to the Attorney General, shall be by the same authority which and finally to the appropriate United executed the compact. Renunciation States District Court, which shall by a party state is to become have original jurisdiction of all cases effective six months after written or controversies arising under this notice of renunciation from the compact. Any appeal so arising compact is communicated to all initiated in a state court shall be other compact parties. removed to the appropriate United States District Court in the manner provided by Section 1446, Title 28 of the United States Code or other statutory authority.

Page 148 ¥ Appendix 21 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report