U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Report of the National Task Force on Federal Legislation
Imposing Reporting Requirements and Expectations on the
Criminal Justice System

Findings
Recommendations

Criminal Justice Information Policy

July 2000, NCJ-183458

U.S. Department of Justice
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D.
Director

This report was prepared by SEARCH, The National Consortium
for Justice Information and Statistics, Kenneth E. Bischoff,
Chairman, and Gary R. Cooper, Executive Director. The
project director was Sheila J. Barton, Deputy Executive
Director. Robert R. Belair, SEARCH General Counsel; Paul L.
Woodard, SEARCH Senior Counsel; and Dr. Thomas A. Henderson,
Executive Director, Office of Government Relations, National
Center for State Courts, provided staff assistance for this
report. Twyla R. Cunningham, Manager, Corporate
Communications, and Michele J. Dawson, Writer/Researcher,
edited this report. Jane L. Bassett, Publishing Specialist,
provided layout and design assistance. The Federal project
monitor was Carol G. Kaplan, Chief, Criminal History
Improvement Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Report of work prepared under BJS Cooperative Agreement No.
96-BJ-CX-K010, awarded to SEARCH Group, Incorporated, 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 (c) SEARCH, Group, Incorporated, dba SEARCH, The
National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics,
2000

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 printed by any source other than SEARCH, The National
Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics.

Contents
I.   Introduction and executive summary

II.  Description of the State court systems and State
criminal justice repositories
State court systems
State criminal justice repositories

III. Examples of Federal mandates
National Child Protection Act of 1993
Summary
Specific requirements imposed

Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
Summary
Specific requirements imposed

The Lautenberg Amendment
Summary
Specific requirements imposed

Sex offender registration statutes
Summary
Specific requirements imposed
Establishment of registry
Registration procedures
Periodic address verification
Special requirements for sexually violent predators
Participation in the National Sex Offender Registry

Court protection orders
Summary
Specific requirements imposed
Entry of orders
Hit confirmation and record validation
Revision of protection order forms

Federal grant programs
National Criminal History Improvement Program
Five Percent Set-Aside Program
Crime Identification Technology Act Program

Other Federal statutes and proposals
Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997
Welfare Reform Act
Federal confidentiality regulations for drug and alcohol
treatment records

IV.  Constraints on Federal mandates: The Tenth amendment
and the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995

Constitutional challenges to Federal mandates on State and
local governments. The Federal Government cannot co-opt the
State legislative process. The Federal Government cannot
require State officers to administer Federal programs

Can the Federal government mandate "purely ministerial
reporting requirements imposed on the States pursuant to the
Commerce Clause? An open question

The Federal Government can regulate State disclosures of
motor vehicle information into the stream of interstate
commerce

Other Tenth amendment challenges since Printz
Unsuccessful Tenth amendment challenges
Tenth amendment issues raised but not resolved

Unfunded Federal mandates
State and local governments demand reform
Requirements of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act
Post-Unfunded Mandate Reform Act developments

V. National Task Force findings

VI. National Task Force recommendations

Appendix 1: Task Force participants

Appendix 2: Implementation of Federal legislation imposing
reporting requirements and expectations on selected State
judicial systems

Colorado

Florida

Louisiana

I.   Introduction and executive summary

The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), U.S. Department of
Justice; SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice
Information and Statistics; and the National Center for
State Courts established a national task force in response
to the courts' expressed need to examine the extent to which
and the manner in which Federal legislation imposes
reporting requirements and expectations on the criminal
justice system and, in particular, the courts. ***Footnote1:
A complete list of the task force members and staff, and
their biographies, is set out at appendix 1.***

This report of the National Task Force on Federal
Legislation Imposing Reporting Requirements and Expectations
on the Criminal Justice System ***Footnote2: Hereafter, Task
Force or National Task Force.*** is focused on providing a
response to the courts' request to review this issue. It is
based on discussion and analysis by the Task Force at three
meetings held as follows: in Sacramento, California, on
January 14-15, 1998; in Baltimore, Maryland, on October
14-15, 1998; and in New Orleans, Louisiana, on March 11-12,
1999. The report is also based upon staff research of
relevant case law, statutory law, secondary sources, and
several surveys and interviews.

The Task Force identified a number of Federal statutes that
contain information reporting requirements that directly or
indirectly impose financial, administrative and technical
demands on State and local courts and justice agencies. The
Task Force recognizes that such statutes are intended to
serve important societal interests and that these statutes
frequently result in or facilitate information benefits,
including more complete records and integrated systems. The
Task Force is concerned, however, that the need to evaluate
the impact of these reporting demands on the criminal
justice system is not being met. The Task Force is further
concerned that, if current trends continue, Federal
reporting mandates ***Footnote3: "Mandate" is used in a
general context without implication of legal appropriation.
See discussion in section III, infra.*** will place
increasingly difficult demands on the criminal justice
system, particularly the courts.

This Task Force report:

* Provides a "snapshot" of the State court and central
repository systems and a review of legislative and judicial
trends relating to Federal directives. See sections II and
III.

* Includes a review of constitutional challenges to certain
Federal mandates on State and local governments, as well as
congressional efforts to address the issue of Federal
requirements imposed without sufficient accompanying
funding. See section IV.

* Examines three clusters of Federal statutes that create
obligations or expectations that State and local courts and
justice agencies will provide information: those
establishing the sex offender registry systems; those
relating to court protection orders; and sections of the
Welfare Reform Act of 1996. See section III.

Finally, the report includes the National Task Force's
findings and recommendations relevant to the issue of
Federal requirements and expectations that create demands
upon State and local courts and justice agencies.
Specifically, the National Task Force adopted the following
findings and recommendations (commentary concerning each
finding and recommendation appears in sections V and VI of
this report).

National Task Force findings

1. The National Task Force finds that, in recent years, the
Federal Government's need for information from State and
local courts and justice agencies has increased in terms of
the quantity and the complexity of data required, and in
terms of the speed with which information must be provided.

2. The National Task Force finds that information needs
arising from the implementation of Federal legislation
increasingly require both civil and criminal justice
information.

3. The National Task Force finds that, customarily, many
State and local courts have not been actively involved in
implementing Federal information initiatives, and have not
received Federal assistance to meet the information demands
arising from the implementation of Federal legislation.

4. The National Task Force finds that the recognition of the
courts as a partner in the design and implementation of
criminal justice information systems and in meeting the
information needs arising from Federal legislation is a
positive and effective approach.

5. The National Task Force finds that the demands imposed by
federally mandated reporting requirements are exacerbated
when the requirements do not build upon existing information
practices. 

6. The National Task Force finds that some important Federal
justice assistance programs have been structured in such a
way that they have effectively excluded the courts from full
participation.

7. The National Task Force finds that the response to
information needs arising from Federal legislation has been
most effective in those States that have adopted a statewide
strategy and approach that includes the courts.

8. The National Task Force finds that disposition reporting
requirements impose significant demands on courts, which, to
be met effectively, require greater resources than currently
available to many courts, as well as an effective statewide
approach to meeting disposition reporting requirements.

National Task Force recommendations

1. The National Task Force recommends and encourages the
development and implementation of integrated information
systems because these systems, among other benefits, enhance
the capacity to comply with information needs arising from
the implementation of Federal legislation.

2. The National Task Force recommends that States include
all affected parties, including the courts, in the process
for the development and implementation of justice
information systems and the implementation of information
reporting requirements that arise from Federal legislation.

3. The National Task Force recommends that courts and
justice agencies explore and provide for the use of civil
justice information for criminal justice purposes.

4. The National Task Force recommends that in order to
increase the efficiency and effectiveness of State and local
courts and justice agencies, these organizations should work
with Congress and relevant Federal departments and agencies
to:

a) identify and evaluate the purposes of and need for
imposing new reporting requirements and determine what
information resources are currently available;

b) define, with specificity, the information to be reported
while retaining flexibility to take advantage of new
technologies;

c) identify collateral consequences of imposing these
requirements;

d) ensure that appropriate Federal financial resources reach
all of the entities that are involved in fulfilling the
information needs arising from Federal legislation,
particularly the courts; and

e) evaluate whether proposed reporting requirements create
conflicting or ambiguous demands on the State and local
justice agencies required to implement them.

5. The National Task Force recommends that information needs
arising from the implementation of Federal legislation or
expectations should, where possible, leave States with
substantial discretion to determine the manner in which the
State will comply with the reporting requirement or
expectation.

6. The National Task Force recommends that State and local
courts and justice agencies work together and with Congress
and the appropriate Federal departments and agencies to
design and implement necessary reporting mechanisms.

7. The National Task Force recommends that Congress provide
funding to State and local courts and justice agencies
sufficient to implement Federal information reporting
requirements and expectations.

8. The National Task Force recommends the establishment of a
catalogue of Federal programs and initiatives that impose or
encourage information reporting requirements to be met by
State and local courts and justice agencies.

II.  Description of the State court systems and 
State criminal justice repositories

State court systems

State court systems are large and diverse, with more than
16,200 State trial courts, including more than 13,600 courts
of limited jurisdiction (authorized to hear only certain
types of cases) and more than 2,500 courts of general
jurisdiction. ***Footnote4: Brian J. Ostrom and Neal B.
Kauder, Examining the Work of State Courts, 1996
(Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 1997)
p. 12 [hereafter, Examining the Work of State Courts
Report].*** The structure of State court systems varies
widely. Thirteen States, for example, have adopted a unified
trial court structure, meaning that courts are consolidated
into a single general-jurisdiction court level with
jurisdiction over all cases and procedures. ***Footnote5:
Ibid.*** The remaining 37 States retain nonunified trial
court systems featuring a sometimes-baffling array of courts
of general and limited jurisdiction.

As the June 1999 report of the National Task Force on Court
Automation and Integration notes, the organizational and
funding structures of State courts are widely varied. "In
some [S]tates, all court staff work for a centralized
unified [S]tate court administrative office. In others, the
administrative office plays a very minor role in court
operations. In some [S]tates, staff reports to an elected
clerk of the court in the executive branch, which means the
courts do not control resources related to their
operations." ***Footnote6: U.S. Department of Justice,
Bureau of Justice Assistance, Report of the National Task
Force on Court Automation and Integration, by SEARCH Group,
Inc. (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, June 1999)
p. 9 (internal citations omitted) [hereafter, Court
Automation and Integration Task Force Report].*** The report
continues, "Courts are not built with the hierarchical
structure commonplace in either executive branch agencies or
the private sector. Leadership is more fragmented than in
justice agencies." ***Footnote7: Ibid., p. 7.***
Independent, elected court clerks with control over their
own budgets are common. Some States are funded almost
entirely at the State level, and others at the local level;
most receive mixed funding. ***Footnote8: Ibid., p. 9.
"About 10 [S]tates are almost totally [S]tate-funded, and 11
are mostly [S]tate-funded. Fifteen are almost totally
locally funded, and another six are mostly locally funded.
Eight have an equal mix of [S]tate and local funding."
Ibid.*** When considering the impact of Federal reporting
requirements and expectations on State and local courts, it
is important to keep these distinctions in mind. The demand
imposed on a highly centralized urban court by a particular
mandate may be significantly different than the demand
imposed by that same requirement or expectation on a small
rural court in a State with a decentralized court system.

It is estimated that a staggering 87.5 million new cases
were filed in State courts in 1996. These cases included
more than 20 million civil and domestic relations cases,
more than 13 million criminal cases, 2 million juvenile
cases and approximately 52 million traffic and ordinance
violations. ***Footnote9: Examining the Work of State Courts
Report, p. 7, supra note 3.*** Between 1984 and 1996, the
number of civil filings increased by 31 percent, criminal
filings were up by 41 percent, juvenile filings by 64
percent and domestic relations filings by 74 percent, yet
traffic filings fell by 15 percent. ***Footnote10: Ibid.***
Not surprisingly, roughly two-thirds of the States were
unable to keep up with the number of criminal and civil
cases filed during the 1984-1996 period. ***Footnote11:
Ibid.*** In 1996, there were more than 28,000 trial judges
and quasi-judicial officers in the Nation's State trial
courts, with more than 1,200 (mostly quasi-judicial)
officials added since 1995.

As these figures indicate, the domestic relations category -
comprised of divorces, support/custody matters, domestic
violence, paternity, interstate child support and adoption -
was, by far, the fastest growing category during the
1984-1996 period. With the exception of interstate-support
cases, caseloads grew in all of these categories during the
covered period. ***Footnote12: Ibid., p. 37.***

Criminal caseloads are also growing, reaching an all-time
high of 13.5 million State court filings in 1996, the most
recent year for which statistics are available.
***Footnote13: Ibid., p. 51.*** Criminal caseloads increased
by 50 percent in courts of general jurisdiction and by 43
percent in courts of limited jurisdiction during the
1984-1996 period. ***Footnote14: Ibid.*** The number of
filings, as would be expected based upon population
differences, varied widely from State to State. Illinois,
for example, reported approximately 563,000 criminal case
filings in 1996, while Wyoming reported slightly fewer than
2,000 criminal filings during that period. ***Footnote15:
Ibid., p. 54.*** Approximately one-third of the States - 16
- each reported more than 100,000 criminal filings in
unified and general jurisdiction courts. ***Footnote16:
Ibid.*** It is estimated that there were more than 169,000
criminal trials in the United States in 1996. ***Footnote17:
Ibid., p. 57.***

In addition to their traditional responsibility for the
adjudication of cases, courts increasingly are being called
upon to perform social service functions, consuming enormous
time and effort. ***Footnote18: Court Automation and
Integration Task Force Report, p. 26, supra note 5.***
Furthermore, these functions require the courts to collect
more information, develop new data management functions, and
improve their ability to exchange information with other
justice system agencies. ***Footnote19: Ibid.*** To meet
these challenges, new court information systems are in
demand to facilitate the exchange of new kinds of data and
to balance conflicting needs for reporting statistical data
while still meeting operational needs. ***Footnote20:
Ibid.***

Mushrooming caseloads, new responsibilities, and limited
resources combine to place a premium on improvements in
efficiency. As the National Center for State Courts has
noted: "Given that the resources necessary to process cases
in a timely fashion, such as judges, court support staff,
and automation, seldom keep pace [with increased caseloads],
courts must constantly search for more efficient ways to
conduct business. Moreover, [F]ederal and [S]tate
governments have adopted or proposed significant changes in
our criminal, juvenile, domestic, and civil justice systems
over the past 5 to 10 years. In many instances, these
changes are not adequately funded to cover any additional or
unintended burden placed on [S]tate courts." ***Footnote21:
Examining the Work of State Courts Report, p. 10, supra note
3.***

Increasingly, courts and other justice agencies are
integrating their information systems to improve efficiency.
In fact, the cost savings factor associated with increased
efficiency is one of the main driving forces behind the move
to integrate State court information systems. ***Footnote22:
Court Automation and Integration Task Force Report, p. 17,
supra note 5.*** The need for additional resources has led
the courts, in recent years, to seek Federal financial
assistance to aid in their efforts to introduce new
technologies and to assist them in meeting their increasing
responsibilities and information reporting obligations.

This was not always the case. One Task Force Member recalled
that a former Chief Justice in the early 1980s was very
proud that his court did not accept any Federal funding.
Although this is an extreme case, it illustrates the old
view that the courts do not and should not participate in
Federal criminal justice assistance programs. State and
local courts, for example, customarily do not view
themselves as "soldiers" in the "wars" on crime and drugs.
Instead, the courts view themselves as neutral arbiters.
Traditionally, this has led to a somewhat detached attitude
toward Federal funding. Today, however, most court systems
realize the importance that Federal financial assistance can
play in meeting many of their goals for innovation. As a
result, courts are reaching out to the Federal Government,
as well as the legislatures and State executives, in order
to secure increased funding to assist in paying for
technological improvements and to assist in meeting Federal
and State reporting requirements and other obligations.

Other "change drivers" that are promoting the development of
integrated court information systems (and thereby further
blurring the line that once existed between the civil and
criminal court systems) are: Federal mandates (discussed in
section III), advances in technology, public expectations
that justice information will be made available, and the
changing role of the courts to encompass not only
adjudication, but also an increasing number of social
service information reporting functions. ***Footnote23:
Ibid., pp. 17-27.***

State criminal justice repositories

The State courts are critical players in the State criminal
justice information system. Other critical players, which
supply the courts with information and also rely upon the
courts to provide them with information, are the "State
central repositories." State central repositories - now
established in every State - are responsible for the
collection, maintenance and dissemination of criminal
history records. The State repositories are agencies or
bureaus within State governments, often housed within the
State police or a cabinet-level agency with public safety
and criminal justice responsibilities. ***Footnote24: U.S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Use and
Management of Criminal History Record Information: A
Comprehensive Report, by Robert Belair and Paul Woodard,
SEARCH Group, Inc. (Washington, DC: Government Printing
Office, 1993) p. 19.*** Typically, the repositories are
charged under State law with establishing comprehensive
files of criminal history records; establishing an efficient
and timely system for retrieving the records; ensuring that
the records are accurate and up to date; and establishing
rules and regulations governing the dissemination of
criminal justice and noncriminal justice users (State and
Federal law also establish such standards). ***Footnote25:
Ibid.*** Central repositories are often responsible for
maintaining fingerprint and other identification records.

At the heart of the repositories' mission is responsibility
for maintaining comprehensive criminal history records,
popularly referred to as "rap sheets." Criminal history
records typically contain information identifying the
subject of the record, including name and numeric
identifiers, such as social security number, physical
characteristics and fingerprints. ***Footnote26: Ibid., p.
22.*** Criminal history records also include information
about the record subject's current and past involvement with
the criminal justice system, including arrests or other
formal criminal charges and dispositions resulting from
these arrests or charges. ***Footnote27: Ibid.*** The
repositories typically limit their collection of criminal
history information to felonies or serious misdemeanors.
***Footnote28: Ibid., p. 23.*** Other types of criminal
justice information seldom included in criminal history
files include "investigative information," "intelligence
information," traffic offenses, and certain other petty
offenses, all of which are excluded from the definition of
"criminal history records" in Federal regulations governing
federally funded record systems. ***Footnote29: Ibid.***

Criminal history information is reported to the State
repositories by courts and criminal justice agencies at
every level of government (Federal, State, and local) and at
each stage in the criminal justice process (by police
departments, prosecutors offices, courts and corrections
agencies). ***Footnote30: Ibid., p. 26.*** State and Federal
statutes mandate that courts and criminal justice agencies
report information to the central repositories. While the
particulars of these requirements vary, they are designed to
ensure that "downstream" agencies - such as prosecutor,
courts, parole, and corrections agencies - provide prompt
and accurate data to the State repositories. ***Footnote31:
Ibid., p. 28.***

While criminal history records traditionally were used
exclusively for criminal justice purposes, in recent years
many public and private noncriminal justice agencies have
argued, persuasively and successfully, for access to these
records. ***Footnote32: Ibid., p. 39.*** Among the
noncriminal justice users that have been successful in
persuading policymakers to grant them access to criminal
history records are the military, national security
agencies, and State licensing boards, as well as private
employers and nonprofit organizations that are hiring for
sensitive positions (or volunteers in sensitive
child-servicing positions) involving vulnerable populations,
such as children and the elderly.

III. Examples of Federal mandates

"Mandates" is a broad term that is used frequently as a
catchall for five types of regulations:

1. Direct orders imposed by the Federal Government on State
and local governments to carry out policies or programs.

2. Conditions tied to grants to States and localities,
which, while technically voluntary, are unlikely to be
declined by the States (for example, Medicaid and highway
funds).

3. "Cross-cutting requirements," which crosscut almost all
federal grant programs, such as requirements that
non-discrimination and environmental protections must be
adhered to when the grant funds are spent by the State or
local government entity.

4. "Cross-over sanctions," which tie a State or local
government's compliance with a smaller program to their
receipt of some larger pot of Federal money.

5. Preemption of State or local actions. ***Footnote33: Paul
Posner, The Politics of Unfunded Mandates: Whither
Federalism? (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press,
1998) p. 4.***

The Task Force uses the term in the broad sense, although
the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 and the Supreme
Court's 10th amendment jurisprudence rely on more narrow
definitions.

In recent years, the Federal Government has increasingly
required States to provide various noncriminal justice
agencies and private sector entities with access to criminal
justice records. These various mandates are designed to
further important governmental interests, ranging from
locating missing children to the regulation of sexual
predators to gun control. This section of the report
examines some of those requirements, particularly those
related to establishing the sex offender registry systems,
those relating to court protection orders, and sections of
the Welfare Reform Act of 1996.

The demands these obligations impose upon State and local
courts and justice agencies vary depending upon a number of
factors. It is almost always more demanding, for instance,
to implement and carry out a reporting requirement that
requires the State or local court or agency to provide
"interpretive data" (such as an assessment of whether a
defendant "knowingly and intelligently" waived his or her
right to a jury trial) than it is to simply forward facts,
such as whether the defendant was arrested or convicted.
Interpretive data are less reliable than factual data
because they require court and justice agency personnel to
make subjective judgments. Another factor that may result in
a Federal requirement being difficult to implement is if it
requires that data be collected or processed in a
nontraditional way, rather than building upon preexisting
directives or customary information practices.

The mandates discussed in this section are intended to be
illustrative and the discussion is designed to convey the
nature of the reporting requirement, as well as its impact
on affected State agencies (frequently State repositories
and State courts).

National Child Protection Act of 1993

* Summary

Section 2(a) of the National Child Protection Act of 1993
requires an authorized criminal justice agency in each State
(in most cases, the State's central criminal records
repository) to report child abuse crime information
(arrests, convictions, and so forth) to the Federal Bureau
of Investigation (FBI) for inclusion in its criminal history
files (the Interstate Identification Index system, also
known as the III), or to index such information in such
files. ***Footnote34: Pub. L. 103-209, codified at 42 U.S.C.
Sec. Sec.5119, et. seq.***

The Act also authorizes the appropriation of funds to help
the States meet established timetables for automating child
abuse crime records, improving arrest and disposition
reporting for such records, and making the records available
on-line through the national criminal history background
check system (the III system).

Subsequent amendments to the Act provided that States need
identify child abuse crime records only to the extent that
such records can be identified by reference to statutory
citations or descriptive labels set out in their criminal
record databases. Further, the mandatory reporting
requirement applicable to child abuse crime records can be
met by reporting or indexing all felony and serious
misdemeanor arrests and dispositions, without accounting for
child abuse crime records separately.

* Specific requirements imposed

The requirement of reporting child abuse crime information
to the FBI is mandatory. However, the amendments seemed to
modify the requirement so that it amounts to nothing more
than what the State repositories were already supposedly
doing voluntarily: (1) reporting all arrests and
dispositions in felony and serious misdemeanor cases to the
FBI; and (2) identifying child abuse crimes only if they
could do so under existing criminal statutes and record
maintenance procedures.

Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act

* Summary

The "interim provision" of the Brady Handgun Violence
Prevention Act established a 5-day waiting period applicable
to the sale of handguns by federally licensed gun dealers.
***Footnote35: Pub. L. 103-159, 107 Stat. 1536, codified at
18 U.S.C. Sec. 922.*** It also required local law
enforcement agencies to make reasonable efforts - including
record searches in available State and national record
systems - to ascertain during the 5-day period whether the
sale of a handgun would violate the law. ***Footnote36: This
latter provision was declared to be unconstitutional by the
Supreme Court in Printz v. United States, 117 S. Ct. 2365
(1997), which is discussed in section IV.***

The "permanent provision" of the Brady Act provides for
point-of-sale background checks on purchasers of all
firearms, using the National Instant Criminal Background
Check System (NICS), which became operational on November
30, 1998. The Act also requires the Attorney General to
establish timetables by which all of the States can provide
criminal records on an on-line basis to the NICS, and
provides for additional Federal funding to expedite the
upgrading of State and Federal criminal history record
systems, the indexing of records in these systems, and the
linking of the systems together to form the NICS.

Because the NICS must be able to provide an immediate
response as to whether a prospective sale of a firearm would
violate Section 922 of the 1968 Gun Control Act, an
effective NICS must have access to information concerning
all of the disqualification categories set out in that
section. In addition to felons and fugitives, these
categories include drug addicts and abusers, adjudicated
"mental defectives," persons subject to certain domestic
relations protective orders, and persons who have been
convicted of certain domestic violence misdemeanors.

* Specific requirements imposed

The NICS required by the permanent provisions of the Brady
Act is a Federal system established and operated by the FBI.
The extent to which the States (and State and local justice
agencies) participate actively in the system is  voluntary.
All States have set timetables for full participation in the
III system, which will provide the essential framework of
the NICS. However, compliance with those timetables is not
mandatory, except to the extent that the States have
accepted Federal funding to assist in preparing for III
participation and to assist in establishing databases of
prohibited classes of firearms purchasers. Also,
participation in the NICS by conducting an initial State
search is voluntary. Most States are participating, however,
and have received Federal funding to support their efforts.

The Lautenberg Amendment

* Summary

The Lautenberg Amendment is a provision of the 1997 Omnibus
Appropriations Act that amends the 1968 Gun Control Act to
add a new category of persons prohibited from buying or
possessing firearms: persons convicted of certain domestic
violence misdemeanors. ***Footnote37: Pub. L. 104-208,
codified at 18 U.S.C.Sec. 922(g).*** The law applies to
persons with misdemeanor convictions involving elements of
domestic violence, as defined in the law, if there was an
"intimate-partner" relationship between the offender and the
victim and if the offender was represented by counsel (or
waived counsel) and had a jury trial, if entitled to one (or
waived the right).

* Specific requirements imposed

The Lautenberg Amendment is a Federal law. The extent to
which State and local justice agencies participate in
screening gun purchasers for Lautenberg-type convictions is
voluntary, except to the extent that obligations have been
undertaken in connection with Federal funding, or where
States have added a comparable prohibition to their State
firearms law.

Whether undertaken by Federal or State officials, the
Lautenberg Amendment will require the following decisions to
be made concerning gun purchasers who have misdemeanor
convictions that might trigger the prohibition:

1. Whether the conviction is for an offense that is
classified as a misdemeanor or, if such classification is
not in use, is an offense punishable by a prison term of 1
year or less.

2. Whether the offense involved an element of domestic
violence (the use or attempted use of physical force).

3. Whether there was an "intimate-partner" relationship
between the offender and the victim.

4. Whether the offender was represented by counsel or
intelligently waived the right of representation.

5. Whether there was a jury trial, if the offender was
entitled to one, or the right was intelligently waived.

There is no mandatory requirement that States report
misdemeanor domestic violence crimes to the FBI, nor a
requirement that such crimes, if reported, be flagged.

Sex offender registration statutes

The following Federal statutes relate to sex offender
registration:

* Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually
Violent Offender Registration Act (including Megan's Law).
***Footnote38: Pub. L. 103-322, Section 170101, codified at
42 U.S.C.Sec. 14071.***

* Pam Lychner Sexual Offender Tracking and Identification
Act of 1996. ***Footnote39: Pub. L. 104-236, codified at 42
U.S.C.Sec. 14072.***

* Section 115 of General Provisions of the 1998
Appropriations Act for the Departments of Commerce, Justice
and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies.

* Summary

The 1994 Jacob Wetterling Act, as amended by Megan's Law,
sets minimum standards for State sex offender registration
programs, including a requirement to register certain sex
offenders for at least 10 years; to inform offenders of
their registration obligations when they are released from
custody; and to keep registration information up to date and
release it as necessary for public safety. The 1996 Lychner
Act amended the Wetterling Act to add several new
requirements, including a lifetime registration requirement
for certain serious offenders and recidivists. Finally, the
1998 Appropriations Act for the Departments of Commerce,
Justice and State (CJSA) further amended the Wetterling Act
to add new requirements relating to the registration of
sexually violent predators, persons convicted of sex
offenses by Federal courts or military courts martial, and
nonresident offenders who have crossed into another State to
work or attend school. The CJSA also requires States to
participate in the National Sex Offender Registry maintained
by the FBI.

States that fail to comply with these standards within the
applicable timeframe are subject to a mandatory 10 percent
reduction of Federal formula grant funding they receive from
the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement
Assistance Program. The deadline for compliance with the
Wetterling Act, as amended by Megan's Law and the 1997 CJSA,
was September 12, 1997, subject to a possible 2-year
extension to September 12, 1999, for States that
demonstrated good-faith efforts to achieve compliance. The
deadline for compliance with the Lychner Act was October 2,
1999, subject to a possible 2-year extension for States that
made good-faith efforts.
* 
Specific requirements imposed

Establishment of registry

Each State must establish a sex offender registry conforming
to the requirements of the Wetterling Act, as amended. The
Wetterling Act does not specify where the registry must be
located, nor how access is to be provided to appropriate
officials. The registry must provide for:

* Registration for at least 10 years for persons convicted
of (1) offenses involving sexual molestation or sexual
exploitation of minors, or (2) sexually violent offenses.

* Lifetime registration for (1) persons who are subject to
registration for a current offense and who have a prior
offense that qualifies for registration, (2) persons
convicted of aggravated sexual abuse, or (3) sexually
violent predators.

States must also register resident offenders who were
convicted in other States or by Federal courts or court
martial, and nonresidents who come into the State to work or
attend school.

Registration procedures

The Wetterling Act requires that whenever a person subject
to the registration requirement is released from prison or
placed on parole, probation or supervised release, the
court, correctional official, or other appropriate official
shall:

1. Obtain fingerprints and a photograph of the person.

2. Inform the person of his or her duty to register and
obtain the information required for registration.

3. Inform the person of the need to keep registration
information current, including changes of address and
re-registration in other States to which the person may move
or into which the person may cross to work or attend school.

4. Require the person to read and sign a form stating that
the requirements have been explained.

Registration information, including changes of address, must
be made available to local law enforcement agencies where
registered persons will reside and to an appropriate State
records system. In addition, fingerprints and conviction
data for persons required to register must be promptly
transmitted to the FBI, if not previously transmitted.

Law enforcement agencies are required to notify the public
that registered persons will be released into the community,
as necessary to protect the public.

Periodic address verification

Addresses of registrants must be verified at least annually
through some means designed to effectively verify the
location of registrants, impress upon them that they
continue to be under observation, and make law enforcement
agencies aware of the presence of registered sex offenders
in their jurisdictions.

Special requirements for sexually violent predators

Persons who have been classified in this category are
subject to these additional registration requirements:

* They are subject to lifetime registration, even if
subsequently determined to be rehabilitated.

* They must verify their addresses on a quarterly basis.

* In addition to their name, identifying information and
address, their initial registration information must include
offense history and documentation of any medical treatment
received.

States must establish procedures for making sexually violent
predator determinations. Such a determination must be made
by a court after considering the recommendation of a board
comprised of treatment experts, victims' rights advocates,
and law enforcement officials, unless the U.S. Attorney
General approves alternate procedures allowing the
determination to be made by some other agency or board
utilizing some other method of securing appropriate input to
ensure fair determinations.

In lieu of the above registration requirements, the U.S.
Attorney General may approve alternative State approaches
that provide comparable or greater effectiveness in
protecting the public from unusually dangerous or
recidivistic sexual offenders.

Participation in the National Sex Offender Registry

The CJSA amendments to the Wetterling Act require each State
to provide information to the FBI for inclusion in the
National Sex Offender Registry (NSOR). This file will be
established as part of the FBI's "National Crime Information
Center (NCIC) 2000" program and will include - in addition
to basic registration information - fingerprints and
mugshots of registrants. Until the NSOR is operational,
States may participate in an interim national pointer system
that flags FBI criminal records of persons registered in
State sex offender registries.

Court protection orders

The following Federal statutes relate to court protection
orders:

* National Protection Order File provision of the 1994
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.
***Footnote40: Pub. L. 103-322, amending 28 U.S.C.Sec.
534.***

* Gun Control Act of 1968. ***Footnote41: 18 U.S.C.Sec.
922(g)(8).***

* Summary

A provision of the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act provides that Federal and State justice
agencies that submit information for inclusion in the FBI's
national crime databases may also submit court orders for
the protection of persons from stalking or domestic
violence. Orders issued by both criminal and civil courts
may be entered into the FBI's National Protection Order
File, which operates as a part of the NCIC.

Another provision of the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act amended the 1968 Gun Control Act to make it
unlawful for persons subject to certain domestic abuse
restraining orders to purchase or possess firearms. In order
to qualify as firearms disqualifiers, court protection
orders must meet the following criteria:

* The order must be a "final" order issued after a hearing
with appropriate notice to the subject of the order.

* There must be an "intimate partner" relationship between
the parties to the order.

* The order must contain explicit findings or restraining
language indicating clearly that the court intended the
order to protect the victim from actual or threatened
physical harm.

* Specific requirements imposed

Entry of protection orders into the FBI National Protection
Order File is voluntary. However, due to the relevance of
these orders to firearms sales, Federal funding is available
from two bureaus within the U.S. Department of Justice, the
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and the Bureau of Justice
Assistance (BJA), to encourage States to establish State
protection order files and to participate in the national
file. Participation in State protection order files or in
the FBI file will entail the following responsibilities for
State and local justice agencies:

Entry of orders

In most cases, protection orders will be entered into the
FBI file and comparable State files by local law enforcement
agencies, which will receive such orders from issuing courts
through the same procedures now applicable to arrest
warrants issued by criminal courts. These law enforcement
agencies will need to determine whether particular orders
qualify for entry into the files and whether certain orders
qualify for entry into the FBI file as so-called "Brady
disqualifiers." Most local jurisdictions will need to
establish communications between their law enforcement
agencies and civil courts, similar to the arrangements that
exist with criminal courts.

Hit confirmation and record validation

Protection orders entered into the FBI file will be subject
to the same requirements regarding hit confirmation and
periodic record validation that are applicable to other FBI
"hot files." Law enforcement agencies will be able to use
existing procedures and arrangements with criminal courts to
comply with these requirements. However, new arrangements
will need to be made between law enforcement agencies and
civil courts in their jurisdictions. 

Revision of protection order forms

Most State courts in the country will need to revise the
forms now in use for protection orders in domestic violence
and stalking cases. Current forms frequently are deficient
in two respects: (1) they do not contain the minimum
mandatory identification information concerning the subject
of the order to qualify for entry into the FBI file or any
State file that will be accessible for name searches, and
(2) the language of the orders makes it difficult or
impossible for law enforcement officials to determine
whether particular orders meet the requirements for entry as
Brady disqualifiers or as firearms disqualifiers under
comparable State firearms laws.

Federal grant programs

As noted above, several of the information needs arising
from the statutes summarized in this section are tied to
Federal funding. This means that in some cases, these
obligations are established as conditions of Federal
funding, and, in other cases, failure to implement
particular requirements can cause a loss of existing grant
entitlements. The two Federal grant programs to which most
of the requirements are tied are: (1) the National Criminal
History Improvement Program (NCHIP), administered by BJS and
(2) the Five Percent Set-Aside Program, administered by BJA.
A third Federal grant program, established by the Crime
Identification Technology Act of 1998 (CITA) is designed to
provide funding for an especially wide array of criminal
justice information identification and communications
initiatives. ***Footnote42: Pub. L. No. 105-251,Sec. Sec.
101-102 (Oct. 9, 1998), 112 Stat. 1871, codified at 42
U.S.C.Sec. 14601.*** Eligibility requirements for CITA funds
are tied to assurances that the State "has the capability to
contribute pertinent information" to NICS and assurances
that a "statewide strategy for information sharing" using
integrated systems is underway or will be initiated to
improve the functioning of the criminal justice system.

* National Criminal History Improvement Program

The National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP)
implements grant provisions in the Brady Act, the National
Child Protection Act and the 1994 Violent Crime Control Act
that pertain to the improvement of criminal history record
systems. The program is aimed primarily at increasing the
accuracy and completeness of State criminal history records
and the extent to which these records are maintained in
automated systems, and appropriately flagged, so as to be
immediately available to the NICS. Some NCHIP funds are also
available to assist States in establishing databases and
database links to facilitate the identification of persons
other than felons - for example, drug addicts, mental
defectives, and persons subject to court restraining orders
- who are prohibited from purchasing firearms under the 1968
Gun Control Act, as amended.

NCHIP builds upon an earlier grant program administered by
BJS - the Criminal History Record Improvement Program
(CHRI), which awarded $27 million to the States in fiscal
years 1990 through 1992, to improve criminal history record
systems.

* Five Percent Set-Aside Program

The Five Percent Set-Aside Program basically supports the
same objectives as the CHRI program and NCHIP and is closely
coordinated with them. Under that program, each State is
required to set aside 5 percent of the Edward Byrne Memorial
State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Formula Grant
funds received in fiscal year 1992 and thereafter
specifically for the improvement of criminal justice
records. Under grant guidelines issued by BJA, each State is
required to take the following actions before spending any
set-aside funds:

* Establish a criminal justice records improvement task
force.

* Conduct an assessment of the completeness and accuracy of
criminal history records within the State.

* Identify the reasons why record quality is low.

* Develop a records improvement plan, which BJA must
approve.

Although these grant programs were intended to help the
States implement the requirements of the Federal statutes
summarized earlier, in some ways they impose additional
demands, such as the requirements to establish task forces
and conduct record assessments. In addition, successful
implementation of the Federal initiatives invariably
involves the allocation of State funds. Finally, in some
cases, funding does not reach all of the agencies that are
required to undertake new obligations, or not in sufficient
amounts to cover all of the new costs.

* Crime Identification Technology Act Program

Congress established the third program, CITA, in 1998 in
recognition of the importance of criminal justice
information, identification, and communication technologies.
***Footnote43: 42 U.S.C.Sec. 14601.*** CITA authorizes $1.25
billion over 5 years for grants to the States to "establish
or upgrade an integrated approach to develop information and
identification technologies and systems" to:

* Upgrade criminal justice and criminal history record
systems, including systems operated by law enforcement
agencies and courts.

* Improve criminal justice identification.

* Promote the compatibility and integration of national,
State, and local systems for criminal justice purposes,
firearms eligibility determinations, identification of sex
offenders, identification of domestic violence offenders,
and for certain authorized background checks unrelated to
criminal justice.

* Capture information for statistical and research purposes
to improve the administration of criminal justice.
***Footnote44: 42 U.S.C.Sec. 14601(a).***

In support of these goals, CITA specifically authorizes 16
categories of projects for which grant funds made available
under the Act can be used. Select examples include:

* Court-based criminal justice information systems that
promote the reporting of dispositions to State central
repositories and the FBI and also promote compatibility
with, and integration of, court systems with other criminal
justice information systems. ***Footnote45: 42 U.S.C.Sec.
14601(b)(9).***

* Sexual offender and domestic violence offender
identification and information systems. ***Footnote46: 42
U.S.C.Sec. 14601(b)(12)-(13).***

* Systems to facilitate full participation in NICS (both
criminal justice and noncriminal justice information
components). ***Footnote47: 42 U.S.C.Sec. 14601(b)(6),
(8).***

* Programs and systems to facilitate full participation in
the III or the III Compact. ***Footnote48: 42 U.S.C.Sec.
14601(b)(4)-(5).***

* State centralized, automated, adult and juvenile criminal
history record information systems, including arrest and
disposition reporting. ***Footnote49: 42 U.S.C.Sec.
14601(b)(1).***

* Automated fingerprint identification systems and finger
imaging, livescan, and other automated systems to digitize
and communicate fingerprints. ***Footnote50: 42 U.S.C.Sec.
14601(b)(2)-(3).***

* Integrated criminal justice information systems to manage
and communicate criminal justice information among law
enforcement agencies, courts, prosecutors and corrections
agencies. ***Footnote51: 42 U.S.C.Sec. 14601(b)(7).***

In order to be eligible for CITA funding, States must
provide the Attorney General with a number of assurances,
including that:

* A "statewide strategy for information sharing systems" is
underway or will be initiated to improve the functioning of
the criminal justice system, with an emphasis on
integration. This plan must take into consideration the
needs of "all branches of the State Government," and those
preparing the plan must have "specifically sought the advice
of the chief of the highest court of the State."
***Footnote52: 42 U.S.C.Sec. 14601(c)(2).***

* The State "has the capability to contribute pertinent
information" to the NICS. ***Footnote53: 42 U.S.C.Sec.
14601(c)(1).***

CITA is designed to provide substantial funding, but not
fund the total cost of particular programs or proposals from
the States. CITA restricts Federal funding to a maximum of
90 percent of the cost of a program or proposal to be
funded, unless a waiver is obtained from the Attorney
General. ***Footnote54: 42 U.S.C.Sec. 14601(d).***

Other Federal statutes and proposals

Following are brief summaries of new laws or proposals
pertaining to noncriminal justice programs that are outside
the scope of the Task Force's study, but which may impose
demands on State and local courts and justice agencies.

* Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997

The objective of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997
is to ensure that children live in safe and permanent homes
through requirements for more timely decisions and stronger
guarantees of safety for abused and neglected children.
***Footnote55: Pub. L. 105-89.*** The Act establishes
Federal standards and timelines for foster care and adoption
proceedings, and for related programs and activities. Courts
are the primary source of information on foster care and
adoption proceedings, and can be expected to be involved in
the tracking and reporting systems that support these
initiatives.

The Act requires States to make "reasonable efforts" to
preserve and reunify families, except in egregious
situations where the parent has:

1. Subjected the child to aggravated circumstances (as
defined by State law and which might include, but which are
not limited to, abandonment, torture, chronic abuse, and
sexual abuse);

2. Been convicted of certain crimes; or

3. Had his or her parental rights to a sibling of the child
involuntarily terminated.

Court records and criminal histories will be the primary
sources of the information needed to establish the existence
of these egregious situations.

The new timelines established by the Act will require the
tracking of foster care and adoption proceedings. Permanency
hearings, for example, must be held within 12 months of a
child entering foster care. Subsequent judicial
"reasonable-efforts" determinations must be made every 12
months, as long as the child remains in State custody. The
Act also requires that a petition to terminate parental
rights be filed for any child in State custody for 15 of the
prior 22 months, unless the circumstances satisfy one of the
exceptions set forth in the Act. Additionally, the Act
establishes other timelines for cases that do not meet the
"reasonable-efforts" test for which the case plan is not
reunification with the child's family. To ensure compliance
with the Act's requirements, State courts must be able to
track these cases and activities.

Further, the Act expands the requirement for providing
notice of hearings. States are required under the Act to
provide notice of hearings and reviews to foster parents,
pre-adoptive parents, and relative caregivers, and to
provide them with an opportunity to be heard. The
requirement for providing these additional notices typically
falls primarily on court personnel.

The Act also requires States to establish procedures for
criminal record checks of prospective foster and adoptive
parents. Responsibility for this requirement will fall on
local law enforcement agencies, court personnel, and the
State repositories. The Act does not require that State
background check procedures include fingerprinting of
prospective foster or adoptive parents, and it does not
preclude the charging of fees for criminal record checks.

* Welfare Reform Act

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), better known as the
Welfare Reform Act, replaced Aid to Families with Dependent
Children (AFDC), an open-ended entitlement program.
***Footnote56: Pub. L. 104-193 and 45 C.F.R.Sec. 307.11.***
By contrast, PRWORA's Temporary Assistance to Needy Families
(TANF) program is a State block grant program. TANF funds
must be administered by the State legislatures. In addition,
the Governor of each State is required to submit a State
plan before a State can receive funds. PRWORA also imposes
child-support enforcement requirements. These requirements,
rather than the changes to the public assistance program,
have had more of an impact on the courts. Because PRWORA
requires implementation of specified support enforcement
techniques and other programs, State legislative changes are
required, which, in turn, affect State courts.

Most significantly related to the data-gathering and
data-sharing requirements, PRWORA requires that each State
establish an automated State case registry that contains
abstract information on the administrative and judicial
support orders relating to paternity and support. For all
support orders related to "IV-D cases" ***Footnote57:
Section IV, Subtitle D of the Act, relating to restricting
welfare and public benefits for aliens.*** and for every
support order related to a non-IV-D case established or
modified after October 1, 1998, abstract data must be
gathered by the State case registry and transmitted to the
Federal Case Registry (FCR). Federal regulations specify the
data elements that must be gathered by the State case
registry and transmitted to the FCR. ***Footnote58: 45
C.F.R.Sec. Sec. 307.11(e)(3), (e)(4) and (f)(1).*** The data
needed to comply with this requirement reside with the
courts. In fact, the courts are the only single source for
the required data on the Non IV-D cases.

In addition to the child support provisions, the Act denies
some welfare eligibility if a family member is a fugitive
felon or a probation or parole violator or has been
convicted of a drug-use felony. State repositories and
courts will be involved in supplying the information
necessary to implement this provision.

Finally, the Act authorizes the Social Security
Administration to enter into agreements with State and local
correctional agencies to obtain information on incarcerated
persons who are denied some or all benefits because of
incarceration, and to study the feasibility of obtaining
such information from other sources, including courts.

* Federal confidentiality regulations for drug and alcohol
treatment records
Federal law and regulations intended to protect the
confidentiality of drug and alcohol treatment records also
have an impact on the State courts, particularly drug
courts: ***Footnote59: 42 U.S.C.Sec. 290dd-2 and 42 C.F.R.
Part 2.***

These laws and regulations apply to programs or agencies
providing diagnosis of chemical dependency and referral to
treatment for addicted offenders within the criminal justice
system and substance abusing minors in the delinquency
system as well as to actual rehabilitative services
providers. Therefore when staff employed by the Drug Court
performs the assessment (or diagnosis) of chemical
dependency and/or the referral to treatment, the Drug Court
is a 'treatment program' for purposes of confidentiality
regulations. ***Footnote60: Rebecca Holland,
"Confidentiality of the Substance Abuse Treatment Records of
Drug Court Participants: An Overview of the Federal Laws and
Regulations" (unpublished report, October 1997) p. 1 (citing
42 C.F.R.Sec. 2.11).***

These regulations place detailed restrictions on the
disclosure of protected records unless the patient has
consented to the release or pursuant to one of the
exceptions set forth in the regulations. ***Footnote61: 42
C.F.R.Sec. 2.31.*** Violations of the regulations are a
criminal offense and violators are subject to fines of up to
$500 for the first offense and $5,000 for each subsequent
offense. ***Footnote62: 42 C.F.R.Sec. 2.4.***

IV.  Constraints on Federal mandates: The Tenth amendment
and the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995

Congressional imposition of mandates, such as those
discussed in section III, has not gone without notice or
controversy. ***Footnote63: As noted previously, the term
"mandates" is used in a broad context in this report as a
catchall for various types of regulations.*** Federal
directives that impose enforceable duties on State and local
governments, as well as on Indian tribes and the private
sector, have, in fact, received considerable attention in
recent years from Congress, the courts, and State and local
governments. Congress has used mandates ***Footnote64: For
example, the previously referenced National Child Protection
Act of 1993 (Pub. L. 103-209).*** as a means to require
State and local governments to comply with a wide array of
legislation, ranging from information reporting requirements
to environmental laws to labor and civil rights statutes; at
the same time, Congress has taken notice that these
requirements place demands on the resources of State and
local governments. These Federal mandates have been
frequently criticized, particularly by the State and local
governments that are required to implement them.

While State and local governments and other critics
acknowledge that Federal directives may produce societal
benefits, they object to certain mandates on constitutional
and/or fiscal grounds. Constitutional objections are based
on the principle of federalism and the belief that the
Constitution (particularly the 10th amendment) creates a
Federal Government of limited powers, with those powers not
delegated to the Federal Government or prohibited to the
States being reserved to the States or the people. Fiscal
objections arise when the Federal Government imposes a
required activity on State and local governments without
also providing the funds to pay for the implementation of
those mandates. These measures, commonly referred to as
"unfunded mandates," force State and local governments to
either raise taxes or fund the federally mandated program at
the expense of State and local programs. Both the
constitutional and fiscal arguments against Federal
requirements have resulted in congressional action and court
decisions that place modest restrictions upon the ability of
the Federal Government to impose mandates on State and local
governments.

Constitutional challenges to Federal mandates on State and
local governments

The 10th amendment, ***Footnote65: "The powers not delegated
to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by
it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people." U.S. Constitution, Amendment X.*** once
dismissed by Justice Stone as nothing "but a truism that all
is retained which has not been surrendered," ***Footnote66:
United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941).*** has
become an increasingly dynamic area of constitutional law.

States have challenged a number of Federal statutes in
recent years, alleging that the challenged statutes
unconstitutionally infringe on State authority by requiring
State executive or legislative officials to participate in
Federal legislative schemes governing such diverse areas as
radioactive waste disposal, background checks for
prospective firearms purchases, and the collection and
disclosure of motor vehicle record information. Mississippi
has even established a committee to evaluate whether Federal
mandates encroach on State authority under the 10th
amendment, presumably as a means of identifying possible
directives to be legally challenged. ***Footnote67: Jeffrey
A. Keithline and Daniel L. Skoler, "Unfunded Mandates:
Headaches, Dilemmas and Myths for Government Lawyers at all
Levels," The Public Lawyer (Summer 1998) p. 16.***

In recent years, several of these challenges have reached
the Supreme Court, and it appears likely that 10th amendment
constraints on Federal power will continue to evolve.
Guidance from existing 10th amendment case law provides some
guideposts - and leaves many open questions, as discussed in
this section.

* The Federal Government cannot co-opt the State legislative
process

In 1992, the Supreme Court, in New York v. United States,
***Footnote68: 505 U.S. 144 (1992).*** invalidated a
provision of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy
Amendments Act of 1985, which required the States to either
enact legislation providing for the disposal of radioactive
waste generated within their borders or take title to and
possession of the waste. The Court concluded that the choice
offered to the States under the Act was a false one because
requiring the States to accept ownership responsibilities
for the waste would "commandeer" the States for the
implementation of Federal regulatory programs. On the other
hand, requiring the States to enact legislation would also
be unconstitutional. The Court concluded that the Federal
Government "may not compel the States to enact or administer
a Federal regulatory program." ***Footnote69: Ibid., at
188.***

* The Federal Government cannot require State officers to
administer Federal programs

Five years later, the Supreme Court, in Printz v. United
States, ***Footnote70: 521 U.S. 898 (1997).*** ruled 5-4
that portions of the Brady Act ***Footnote71: Pub. L. No.
103-159, as amended (codified at 18 U.S.C.Sec. 922).*** that
imposed requirements on State and local chief law
enforcement officers (CLEOs) on a temporary basis were
unconstitutional. The Brady Act required CLEOs, under
certain circumstances, to accept a notice of proposed
firearm transfer from a gun dealer and "make a reasonable
effort to ascertain within 5 business days whether receipt
or possession [by the prospective purchaser] would be in
violation of the law, including research in whatever State
and local recordkeeping systems are available and in a
national system designated by the Attorney General."
***Footnote72: 18 U.S.C.Sec. 922s(2).*** The Brady Act
imposed this background check obligation on a temporary
basis, until the NICS - the method by which immediate
on-line purchase checks would be accomplished - became
operational.

The Supreme Court, noting that the text of the Constitution
was silent on the precise issue involved, concluded: "The
answer to the CLEOs challenge must be sought in historical
understanding and practice, in the structure of the
Constitution, and in the jurisprudence of this Court."
***Footnote73: Printz, 521 U.S. 898, 905.*** The Court found
that historical practice "tends to negate the existence of
the congressional power asserted here" ***Footnote74: Ibid.,
at 918.*** but, in the end, was inconclusive. ***Footnote75:
The Court found that early congressional enactments
"establish, at most, that the Constitution was originally
understood to permit imposition of an obligation on state
judges to enforce Federal prescriptions, insofar as those
prescriptions related to matters appropriate for the
judicial power." Ibid., at 907 (emphasis in original). The
government pointed to a number of more recent statutes;
however, the Court found them to be either inapposite or too
recently enacted to be indicative of a constitutional
tradition. Ibid., at 918.*** Turning its attention to the
structure of the Constitution, the Court concluded that the
Constitution envisioned a system of "dual sovereignty" with
the State and Federal Government exercising concurrent power
over the people, and that allowing the Federal Government to
impress the police of the 50 States into service would
"immeasurably and impermissibly" augment the power of the
Federal Government and also threaten the balance of power
among the branches of the Federal Government, permitting
Congress to circumvent the executive branch and use State
officials to implement its policies. Turning to its own
prior rulings, including the previously referenced New York,
the Court found the challenged provisions of the Brady Act
to be an unconstitutional co-opting of State executive
officers. ***Footnote76: The government had argued in favor
of a balancing test to weigh the Federal Governmental
interest against a statute's potential imposition on the
States. The Court declined this invitation, concluding that
while a balancing analysis would be permissible under "a
federal law of general applicability [that] excessively
interfered with the functioning of state governments" in
cases, "where, as here, it is the whole object of the law to
direct the functioning of the state executive, and hence to
compromise the structural framework of dual sovereignty,
such a "balancing" analysis is inappropriate." Ibid., at 932
(emphasis in original).***

* Can the Federal Government impose "purely ministerial
reporting requirements" on the States pursuant to the
Commerce Clause? An open question

In Printz, the Supreme Court took notice of the issue of the
Federal imposition of information reporting requirements on
State and local governments, but reserved the issue for
future consideration. The Court noted that statutes "which
require only the provision of information to the Federal
Government, do not involve the precise issue here, which is
the forced participation of the States' executive in the
actual administration of a Federal program. We, of course,
do not address these or other currently operative enactments
that are not before us; it will be time enough to do so if
and when their validity is challenged in a proper case."
***Footnote77: Ibid., at 918.*** Justice O'Connor, in a
concurring opinion, stated: "The Court appropriately
refrains from deciding whether other purely ministerial
reporting requirements imposed by Congress on State and
local authorities pursuant to its Commerce Clause powers are
similarly invalid. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C.Sec. 5779(a)
(requiring State and local law enforcement agencies to
report cases of missing children to the Department of
Justice)." ***Footnote78: Ibid., at 936 (Justice O'Connor,
concurring).***

"Purely ministerial reporting requirements," as Justice
O'Connor characterized them, are the type of mandate most
frequently imposed on State and local courts and justice
agencies. While the Court declined to address the
constitutionality of these measures in Printz, the Court
recognized these types of reporting requirements as a
distinct category of Federal mandate, increasing the
likelihood that the constitutionality of one of these
measures will be challenged in the future.

* The Federal Government can regulate State disclosures of
motor vehicle information into the stream of interstate
commerce

In Reno v. Condon, ***Footnote79: 120 S. Ct. 666, 2000 U.S.
LEXIS 503 (Jan. 12, 2000). The Fourth Circuit case was the
first of four decisions issued by the Courts of Appeals on
the constitutionality of the DPPA; two decisions upheld the
constitutionality of the DPPA, two held it to be
unconstitutional. See, Condon v. Reno, 155 F.3d 453 (4th
Cir. 1998) (holding DPPA is unconstitutional); Pryor v.
Reno, 171 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 1999) (holding DPPA is
unconstitutional); Travis v. Reno, 160 F.3d. 1000 (7th Cir.
1998) (upholding DPPA); Oklahoma v. United States, 161 F.3d
1266 (10th Cir. 1998) (upholding DPPA). The DPPA has also
been challenged on 1st amendment grounds; however,
discussions of 1st amendment challenges are omitted here.
See, for example, Travis v. Reno and Oklahoma v. United
States.*** the Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit
Court of Appeals, rejecting a 10th amendment challenge by
the State of South Carolina to the constitutionality of the
Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994 (DPPA).
***Footnote80: 18 U.S.C.Sec. 2721, et. seq.*** The DPPA
provides that State departments of motor vehicles (DMVs)
"shall not knowingly disclose or otherwise make available to
any person or entity personal information about any
individual obtained by the department in connection with a
motor vehicle record." ***Footnote81: 18 U.S.C.Sec.
2721(a).*** The Act, designed to restrict public and
commercial access to motor vehicle records in order to
protect the privacy of licensees, contains a number of
exceptions. DMVs, for example, are required to disclose
information for certain purposes related to motor vehicle
administration. In addition, the DPPA contains 14 exceptions
pursuant to which States may elect to disclose DMV records
in certain other instances, such as with the consent of the
licensee. ***Footnote82: 18 U.S.C.Sec. 2721(b).*** Violation
of the DPPA may result in criminal fines and a civil cause
of action against a person who knowingly violates the
statute. ***Footnote83: 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.2723(a) and
2724(a).***

The Fourth Circuit, relying on its interpretation of Printz
and New York, concluded that while the DPPA did not require
the States to legislate, as was the case in New York, and
did not require the State executive to enforce the DPPA
against individuals, as was the case in Printz, the DPPA did
require that States administer a Federal program applicable
only to the States. Therefore, Congress lacked the power to
enact DPPA under the Commerce Clause because "rather than
enacting a law of general applicability that incidentally
applies to the States, Congress passed a law that, for all
intents and purposes, applies only to the States.
Accordingly, the DPPA is simply not a valid exercise of
Congress's Commerce Clause power." ***Footnote84: 155 F.3d
453, 456.***

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, reversed the
Fourth Circuit and upheld the constitutionality of the DPPA.
The Court concluded that "the DPPA does not require States
in their sovereign capacity to regulate their own citizens.
The DPPA regulates the States as the owners of databases. It
does not require the South Carolina Legislature to enact any
laws or regulations, and it does not require State officials
to assist in the enforcement of Federal statutes regulating
private individuals. We accordingly conclude that the DPPA
is consistent with the constitutional principles enunciated
in New York and Printz." ***Footnote85: Reno v. Condon, 2000
U.S. LEXIS 503 at 17.*** In addition, the Court disagreed
with the Fourth Circuit's holding that the DPPA exclusively
regulated the States, finding instead that the "DPPA
regulates the universe of entities that participate as
suppliers to the market for motor vehicle information - the
States as initial suppliers of the information in interstate
commerce and private resellers or redisclosers of that
information in commerce." ***Footnote86: Ibid.*** As a
result, the Court did not address the "question whether
general applicability is a constitutional requirement for
Federal regulation of the States."

The 10th amendment challenge to the DPPA did not raise the
issue of "purely ministerial" reporting requirements, which
was reserved in Printz and could affect many Federal
reporting mandates. In addition, the Condon decision did not
resolve the question of whether the general applicability of
a law is a constitutional requirement for Federal regulation
of the States. It is clear from the Court's decision in
Condon that there are limits to the extent to which the
Court is willing to use the 10th amendment to shield the
States from regulation under Federal law. Given the brevity
of the Court's decision and its efforts to distinguish
Condon from New York and Printz, however, the scope of the
protections afforded to the States by the 10th amendment
remains unclear.

* Other Tenth amendment challenges since Printz

Since Printz, in addition to the DPPA cases discussed above,
both States and private parties have used the 10th amendment
to challenge the constitutionality of a number of Federal
statutes. In one case, a court even raised the issue on its
own, although it subsequently concluded that the issue had
been waived. A sample of the cases that have reached the
Courts of Appeals demonstrate the wide range of Federal
activities being challenged on 10th amendment grounds,
albeit unsuccessfully, since the Printz decision in June
1997.

Unsuccessful Tenth amendment challenges

* The Lautenberg Amendment ***Footnote87: 18 U.S.C.Sec.
922(g).*** was unsuccessfully challenged by a defendant
convicted of possessing a gun in interstate commerce,
alleging that it unconstitutionally interfered with the
power of State courts to implement State domestic relations
law. ***Footnote88: United States v. Wilson, 159 F.3d 280,
287-288 (7th Cir. 1998).*** In another unsuccessful
challenge, the Fraternal Order of Police argued that the
Amendment, which contains no special exemption for police
officers, violated the 10th amendment because it interfered
with the ability of State law enforcement agencies to arm
those officers who had been convicted of domestic violence
misdemeanors. ***Footnote89: Fraternal Order of Police v.
United States, 173 F.3d 898 (DC Cir. 1999), cert. denied 120
S. Ct. 324, 145 L. ed. 2d. 253 (1999).***

* A provision of the Foreign Trade Zones Act ***Footnote90:
19 U.S.C.Sec. 81o(e).*** was unsuccessfully challenged by a
group of local school districts that alleged that the Act's
exemption of designated foreign trade zones from State and
local taxes was a violation of the 10th amendment.
***Footnote91: Deer Park Independent School District v.
Harris County Appraisal District, 132 F.3d 1095 (5th Cir.
1998).***

* Massachusetts unsuccessfully used the 10th amendment to
allege that a Federal court lacked the constitutional
authority to enjoin a State law it had determined to be in
conflict with the Endangered Species Act. ***Footnote92: 16
U.S.C.Sec. 1531, et seq.*** While acknowledging that the
Federal courts are bound by the 10th amendment, the Court of
Appeals rejected the claim. ***Footnote93: Strahan v. Coxe,
127 F.3d 155 (1st Cir. 1998).***

* The Federal Labor Standards Act ***Footnote94: 29 U.S.C.
Sec. Sec.201, et. seq.*** was challenged as unconstitutional
by Anne Arundel County, Maryland. The Fourth Circuit
declined to find the Act unconstitutional because the
Supreme Court had upheld the constitutionality of the Act in
the 1985 case of Garcia v. San Antonio Metro Transit
Authority, ***Footnote95: 469 U.S. 528 (1985).*** and had
not explicitly overruled that decision in Printz.
***Footnote96: West v. Anne Arundel County, 137 F.3d 752
(4th Cir. 1998).***

* A defendant in a joint civil suit brought by the United
States and Connecticut unsuccessfully challenged the
constitutionality of the lawsuit as a violation of 10th
amendment dual sovereignty principles. The Court reasoned
that Connecticut's participation in the suit was voluntary
and therefore not in violation of the 10th amendment.
***Footnote97: United States v. Vazquez, 145 F.3d 74 (2nd
Cir. 1998).***

Tenth amendment issues raised but not resolved

* A provision of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
governing the placement of wireless communications
facilities ***Footnote98: 42 U.S.C.Sec. 704(c)(7)(b).*** was
challenged by the City of Virginia Beach as an
unconstitutional violation of the 10th amendment because it
interfered with local zoning authority. The Court of Appeals
did not reach the constitutional question, finding for the
city on statutory grounds.

* The Second Circuit raised the 10th amendment issue itself
regarding a provision of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
***Footnote99: 42 U.S.C.Sec. 9658.*** The Court noted that
the provision "appears to purport to change state law and is
therefore of questionable constitutionality."
***Footnote100: ABB Industrial Systems v. Prime Technology
Inc., 120 F.3d 351, 360 n. 5 (2nd Cir. 1997).*** The Court
did not address the issue, however, concluding that it had
not been raised on appeal and had therefore been waived.

Unfunded Federal mandates

* State and local governments demand reform

While State and local governments are frequently critical of
Federal mandates, that criticism customarily becomes more
vocal when the mandate imposed by the Federal Government is
not accompanied by Federal funding sufficient to implement
the mandate. By the early 1990s, these critics had become
increasingly vocal.

On October 27, 1993, for example, State and local officials
from across the country, including representatives from the
National Conference of Mayors, the National Association of
Counties, the National League of Cities, the National
Conference of State Legislatures, and the National Governors
Association, came to Washington, D.C., and declared the day
"National Unfunded Mandates Day" in an effort to draw public
and congressional attention to the burdens that unfunded
mandates were imposing on State and local governments.
***Footnote101: Theresa A. Gullo and Janet M. Kelly,
"Federal Unfunded Mandate Reform: A First Year
Retrospective," Public Administration Review
(September/October 1998) pp. 379, 380.*** Congress
subsequently held hearings on the issue, and heard State and
local officials complain of the burdens that unfunded
mandates were imposing on their governments. The 103rd
Congress, however, did not pass unfunded-mandate
legislation, despite bipartisan support.

Unfunded mandates received additional attention when the
issue was included in the Republican "Contract with America"
for the 1994 congressional elections. Following their
victory in the 1994 elections, the "Unfunded Mandate Reform
Act of 1995" (UMRA) was given the symbolic honor of being
the first bill introduced in the Senate at the opening of
the 104th Congress (and the fifth bill introduced in the
House of Representatives). Hearings were again held on the
issue; State and local officials again complained of the
burdens imposed by unfunded mandates.

The mayor of Columbus, Ohio, explained the problem this way: 

"Others have called [unfunded Federal mandates] spending
without representation. Across this country, mayors and city
councils and county commissioners have no vote on whether
these mandated spending programs are appropriate for our
cities. Yet, we are forced to cut other budget items or
raise taxes or utility bills to pay for them because we must
balance our budget at our level. ***Footnote102: Report of
the Committee on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate,
"Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995" (January 11, 1995) p.
2 (quoting Mayor Greg Lashutka of Columbus, Ohio)
[hereafter, Senate Governmental Affairs Report].***

The mayor of Philadelphia was perhaps even more direct:

"What is happening is we are getting killed. In most
instances, we can't raise taxes. Many townships are at the
virtual legal cap that their State government puts on them,
or in my case in Philadelphia, I took over a city that had a
$500 million cumulative deficit that had raised four basic
taxes 19 times in the 11 years prior to my becoming mayor.
We have driven out 30 percent of our tax base in that time.
I can't raise taxes, not because I want to get re-elected or
because it is politically feasible to say that, but because
that would destroy what is left of our tax base, and our
base isn't good enough ....  So when you pass a mandate down
to us and we have to pay for it, the police force goes down,
the firefighting force goes down. Recreation departments are
in disrepair. Our [recreation] centers are in disrepair
because our capital budget is being sopped up by Federal
mandates, by the need to pay for Federal mandates."
***Footnote103: Ibid., pp. 2-3 (quoting then-Mayor Edward
Rendell of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania).***

While not present at the hearings, then-Governor Fife
Symington of Arizona coupled State and local concerns over
Federal mandates with a simmering resentment at perceived
Federal interference with State and local affairs. In a
statement that the Goldwater Institute characterized as
"like a complaint to King George III," Symington declared,
"the [S]tate and local governments around this [N]ation are
losing their power to better the lives of our own people.
The most vital decisions about our futures as [S]tates are
being made for us by far-off unelected bureaucrats and
handed down like summary orders from distant gods."
***Footnote104: Douglas Munro, "Summary Orders from Distant
Gods: The Unfinished Agenda Following the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995," Issue Analysis series (Phoenix, AZ: The
Goldwater Institute, February 1995) p. 1.***

During this period, Congress received a number of reports
addressing the problem facing State and local governments.
The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations
issued detailed recommendations for Federal mandate relief.
***Footnote105: Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental
Relations, "Federal Mandate Relief for State, Local, and
Tribal Governments" (January 1995).*** Another report,
produced by Price Waterhouse for the National Conference of
Mayors, estimated that the cost of unfunded mandates for the
period from 1994 to 1998 would total nearly $54 billion for
cities alone. ***Footnote106: Report of the Committee on
Rules, United States House of Representatives, "Unfunded
Mandate Reform Act of 1995" (January 13, 1995) pp. 4-5.***
According to the Senate Report that accompanied UMRA,
environmental mandates "headed the list of areas that State
and local officials have claimed to be the most burdensome."
***Footnote107: Senate Governmental Affairs Report, supra
note 99, p. 6.*** Other Federal requirements that State and
local officials cited as burdensome and costly included:
"compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the
Motor Voter Registration Act; complying with the
administrative requirements that go with implementing many
Federal programs; and meeting Federal criminal justice and
educational program requirements." ***Footnote108: Ibid.,
pp. 6-7.***

The cost of unfunded mandates to State and local governments
was not the only issue before Congress as it considered
UMRA; the need for cooperation among the various levels of
government was also a consideration. As the Senate committee
report noted: "What is lost in the debate is the need for
all levels of government to work together in a constructive
fashion to provide the best possible delivery of services to
the American people in the most cost-effective fashion." The
report went on to state:

State and local officials emphasized in the Committee's
hearings ... that over the last decade the Federal
Government has not treated them as partners in the providing
of effective governmental services to the American people,
but rather as agents or extensions of the Federal
bureaucracy. In their view, this lack of coordination and
cooperation has not only affected the provision of services
at a local level but also carries with it the penalty of
high costs, costs that they pass on to local citizens.
***Footnote109: Ibid., p. 4.***

* Requirements of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act

The 104th Congress passed UMRA and President Clinton signed
it into law on March 22, 1995. ***Footnote110: Pub. L. No.
104-4 (1995).*** UMRA does not prohibit Congress from
enacting unfunded mandates. Instead, UMRA seeks to provide
Congress with information about the cost of unfunded
mandates in proposed legislation and provide a procedural
mechanism for striking unfunded mandates from legislation if
they would impose an annual direct burden of $50 million or
more on State, local, or tribal governments. ***Footnote111:
The monetary caps are in 1996 dollars and are adjusted
annually for inflation.***

UMRA requires the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to
estimate, with certain exceptions, the cost of unfunded
mandates in proposed legislation. CBO is required to make a
detailed report on any covered bill that it estimates would
result in an aggregate annual direct cost of $50 million or
more on State, local, or tribal governments, or $100 million
or more in aggregate annual direct cost on the private
sector. With certain exceptions, a parliamentary point of
order can be raised against bills that are not scored by the
CBO or bills that impose unfunded intergovernmental mandates
above the $50 million threshold (mandates on the private
sector currently are not subject to a point of order). In
the House, if a Member raises a point of order, the entire
House must vote on whether to consider the entire bill
regardless of whether there is a violation. "In the Senate,
if a point of order is raised and sustained, the bill is
essentially defeated." ***Footnote112: Congressional Budget
Office, "An Assessment of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
in 1997" (February 1998) at box 1.*** In addition, Title II
of UMRA requires that Federal agencies assess the effects of
new regulations on State, local, and tribal governments and
the private sector to minimize burdens, when possible.

* Post-Unfunded Mandate Reform Act developments

The passage of UMRA, while a positive development, has not
solved the unfunded mandate issue, particularly as it
relates to State and local courts and justice agencies.
Information reporting requirements, for example, may not
meet the threshold of $50 million in direct costs that is
required to trigger the procedural protections of UMRA.
Another drawback is that UMRA defines a "mandate" narrowly
to include only that category that directly requires the
compliance of the criminal justice agency, excluding
mandates that are tied to Federal grant programs from UMRA's
protections.

Of course, UMRA is only a means of raising the unfunded
mandates issue as Congress considers a particular piece of
legislation. It does not prevent Congress, if it is so
inclined, from imposing mandates.

UMRA, while beneficial, is not the answer to the mandate
issue. As one commentator has noted, "Relying solely on
[UMRA] to protect State and local governments from onerous
and costly Federal mandates is expecting too much. State and
local officials will need to remain vigilant in identifying
impacts in proposed and final Federal legislation."
***Footnote113: Mary Kay Falconer and Francis Berry,
"Federal Mandates: Getting Beyond the Rhetoric," Spectrum
(Spring 1995) p. 21.*** Toward that end and recognizing that
UMRA does not actually prevent unfunded mandates from being
imposed on the States, the Council of State Governments
created a "Federalism Index" designed to "inform States
about federalism activities in all three branches of the
Federal Government." ***Footnote114: Bert Waisanen, "A
Watchdog for the States," State Government News (March 1997)
p. 12.*** The Federalism Index relies on information
generated by a number of sources, including the CBO and
agency estimates required by UMRA to track: (1) statutes
enacted by Congress containing unfunded mandates or
preemption provisions; (2) finalized Federal regulations
having a serious impact on State economies; (3) Supreme
Court federalism cases; and (4) pending bills or amendments
that are costly to State and local governments.
***Footnote115: Ibid., p. 13.***

In addition, the National Conference of State Legislatures
has called upon Congress to strengthen Title II of UMRA,
which addresses rules by Federal agencies, accusing the
agencies of "ignoring the spirit of [UMRA] and exploiting
loose language in the text of Title II ... to avoid any
change in their behavior." ***Footnote116: National
Conference of State Legislatures, "Mandate Watch," The
States' Advocate (April 1998) p. 2.***

In Congress, however, the focus has shifted to unfunded
mandates on the private sector. On February 10, 1999, the
House, by a bipartisan vote of 274-149, passed H.R. 350,
"The Mandates Information Act of 1999." This bill would
strengthen UMRA - which currently requires only that the CBO
score mandates on the private sector in excess of $100
million without subjecting such directives to a point of
order - by allowing points of order against private sector
mandates, as well as the intergovernmental mandates. As of
April 2000, the measure was before the Senate. The House
passed a similar measure during the 105th Congress; however,
the Senate did not act. Opponents of the Mandates
Information Act argued that the bill would make it easier to
defeat health, environmental, and labor legislation.
Supporters argued that neither the "Mandates Information Act
of 1999" nor UMRA would prevent Congress from enacting an
unfunded mandate if it were so inclined. Instead, both
measures are designed to ensure that Congress is informed
about unfunded mandates before it, and that Members be
required to go on record in support of such mandates so that
the voters can hold them accountable.

V.   National Task Force findings

Based on its discussions of issues and concerns related to
Federal legislation that imposes reporting requirements and
expectations on the criminal justice system, the Task Force
adopted the following findings:

Finding 1: The National Task Force finds that, in recent
years, the Federal Government's need for information from
State and local courts and justice agencies has increased in
terms of the quantity and the complexity of data required
and in terms of the speed with which information must be
provided.

Commentary: The Federal Government's need for information
from State and local courts and justice agencies has
increased in recent years to support important Federal
policy initiatives. As illustrated by the statutes and
regulations cited in section III of this report, the Federal
Government customarily seeks information for countless
Federal initiatives, ranging from gun control to adoption
and welfare reform.

The information needs of the Federal Government have
increased not only in number, but also in complexity. Early
reporting requirements tended to "harvest" event-driven
facts, such as arrests and dispositions. Recent Federal
legislation, however, requires interpretation, as well as
event reporting. The Lautenberg Amendment, for example,
requires courts to make determinations about whether an
offender was represented by counsel or "intelligently"
waived the right of representation. ***Footnote117: Pub. L.
104-208, codified at 18 U.S.C.Sec. 922(g).*** The same law
also requires a determination of whether there was a jury
trial, if the offender was entitled to one, or whether the
right was intelligently waived.

Finally, there is an increasing premium on the speed with
which information is made available. Under the Brady law,
for example, background checks about individuals seeking to
purchase firearms are completed almost instantly, or in some
cases, in days. ***Footnote118: Pub. L. 103-159, 107 Stat.
1536, codified at 18 U.S.C.Sec. 922.*** If information about
potential disqualifiers, such as felony convictions, is not
made available by the courts and the State repositories
promptly, an improper firearms sale may be authorized.

Of course, these circumstances are not unique to the Federal
Government. State governments, as well as courts and
criminal justice agencies themselves, are increasingly using
civil and criminal justice information to improve the
efficiency and the effectiveness of the justice system. In
Colorado, State officials attribute increased demands for
timely, complete and accurate information by the State
judiciary to the judiciary's increased understanding of what
is technologically possible as a result of the judiciary's
experiences with Federal reporting requirements.

Finding 2: The National Task Force finds that information
needs arising from the implementation of Federal legislation
increasingly require both civil and criminal justice
information.

Commentary: Traditionally, Federal information reporting
requirements focused primarily on criminal justice
information, such as arrest and disposition reporting.
Federal financial support was tailored to support the
reporting of the required criminal justice information.
Information from civil justice records was typically not
required and, as a result, there was a scarcity of Federal
financial support for the automation of civil justice
records. 

In recent years, there has been a considerable increase in
reporting requirements drawing on civil justice information.
Implementation of provisions of the 1994 Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act that restrict the ability of
those subject to domestic abuse protection orders to
purchase firearms, for example, requires information from
protection orders, which most frequently arise from civil
court petitions. ***Footnote119: Pub. L. 103-322, amending
28 U.S.C.Sec. 534.*** In another example, it will be
necessary to track civil court proceedings involving covered
foster care and adoption proceedings in order to monitor
compliance with the timelines mandated by the Adoption and
Safe Families Act of 1997. ***Footnote120: Pub. L.
105-89.***

Implementing these civil reporting requirements is difficult
for many courts for a variety of reasons. First, in most
courts, the automation of civil justice information lags
behind automation of criminal justice information. Second,
civil justice information has not always been reported,
including identifiers, such as a date of birth or social
security number. This information, of course, is necessary
to match against other records.    

Finding 3: The National Task Force finds that, customarily,
many State and local courts have not been actively involved
in implementing Federal information initiatives and have not
received Federal assistance to meet the information demands
arising from the implementation of Federal legislation.

Commentary: Unlike executive branch agencies, State and
local courts customarily have not been involved in shaping
the information reporting requirements that arise from
Federal legislation. Furthermore, courts frequently lack the
infrastructure to respond to information reporting
requirements, particularly where these requirements are not
directly related to accomplishing the courts' mission. 

Task Force discussions trace this lack of involvement by
State and local courts in the decisionmaking processes and
the failure of the courts to participate in a proportionate
share of the funding that has accompanied many Federal
initiatives to several factors (the weighting of which
varies substantially from State to State). Some State and
local courts, for example, have traditionally been reluctant
to participate in Federal initiatives or accept Federal
funds out of concern that such involvement would somehow be
interpreted to mean that they were not neutral arbiters of
justice. Other courts have sought to participate and obtain
funding, but have been unsuccessful due to local political
considerations. In other settings, the courts have not been
viewed as intended participants or funding recipients of
particular Federal initiatives. 

This lack of involvement led to the creation of information
reporting mechanisms that, from the perspective of the
courts at least, are less than optimal. Law enforcement
systems, for example, customarily feature the arrest as the
key event, to which all subsequent data must be tied. The
arrest event, however, is not featured in most court
systems, creating the potential for mismatching and other
problems when it becomes necessary to tie final court
dispositions to the original arrest.

Despite the traditional lack of funding, infrastructure and
involvement in the decisionmaking process, the courts
increasingly recognize the importance of information for the
courts' own internal needs, as well as for the needs of
outside information users, such as the Federal Government
and other branches of the State governments.

The courts view the Crime Identification Technology Act of
1998 (CITA) as a positive development. ***Footnote121: Pub.
L. No. 105-251, 112 Stat. 1871.*** CITA authorizes $1.25
billion over 5 years for grants to the States to upgrade
criminal justice and criminal history record systems,
improve criminal justice identification, promote the
compatibility and integration of national, State and local
systems for a variety of purposes, and to capture
information for statistical and research purposes to improve
the administration of criminal justice. ***Footnote122: Pub.
L. No. 105-251,Sec. 102(a), (e).*** In doing so, CITA
recognizes court-based criminal justice systems as a
category of system eligible for CITA funds and requires
States to provide "an assurance that the individuals who
have developed the grant application took into consideration
the needs of all branches of the State Government and
specifically sought the advice of the chief of the highest
court of the State with respect to the application."
***Footnote123: Pub. L. 105-251Sec. 102(c)(2)(D).***

Federal initiatives, such as CITA, that include the courts
in technological initiatives and information system
planning, are seen as important trends in helping to ensure
that the courts are able to play a role in the development
and implementation of new information reporting
requirements. These initiatives also help courts to
modernize their own information systems.

Finding 4: The National Task Force finds that the
recognition of the courts as a partner in the design and
implementation of criminal justice information systems and
in meeting the information needs arising from Federal
legislation is a positive and effective approach.

Commentary: Some recent Federal initiatives require that
States establish advisory bodies or task forces comprised of
representatives of courts and criminal justice agencies to
develop implementation plans. The Task Force finds that
these bodies are effective when the approach taken is truly
collegial in nature and when there is determined political
leadership supporting a collegial approach.

The Task Force notes with approval that the courts have
become active participants in some States, such as Colorado,
through involvement and leadership from the Chief Justice,
key legislators, judges, and State court administrators.
Similarly, court officials in Maryland have become active
participants in the efforts in that State to modernize and
integrate their information systems.

Finding 5: The National Task Force finds that the demands
imposed by federally mandated reporting requirements are
exacerbated when the requirements do not build upon existing
information practices. 

Commentary: Task Force deliberations highlighted the fact
that federally mandated reporting requirements are more
difficult to implement when they significantly depart from
preexisting information collection practices. 

For example, members of the Task Force reported that courts
encounter significant difficulty in providing information
necessary to implement the Lautenberg Amendment, such as,
(1) whether an offender was represented by counsel or
intelligently waived the right of representation, (2)
whether there was an "intimate partner" relationship between
the offender and the victim, and (3) whether there was a
jury trial, if the offender was entitled to one, or the
right was intelligently waived. These data elements, which
require either a court finding or some value judgment as to
"intelligent waiver" or "intimacy," were not traditionally
tracked by court clerks and administrators; therefore,
making these assessments had proven more demanding than
traditional, fact-based reporting requirements, such as
disposition information.

Similarly, State repositories have reported difficulties in
satisfying Immigration and Naturalization Service
requirements that justice agencies report the arrest of
aliens. Traditionally, the FBI and law enforcement officials
collected the place of birth of arrestees on fingerprint
cards, but not their self-reported citizenship status.
Complying with the INS requirements forced a redesign of the
fingerprint card and raised issues regarding the utility of
self-reported citizenship information obtained at the time
of arrest.

It is the sense of the Task Force that this is part of a
growing trend. Task Force members cited examples ranging
from welfare reform to initiatives by the Departments of
Transportation and Health and Human Services, which
increasingly require State and local agencies to collect
information that had not previously been collected or
tracked.

The Task Force recognizes that courts and law enforcement
agencies are frequently in a unique position to capture
information. The courts, for example, interact with
individuals in controlled situations, which facilitate
obtaining a considerable amount of information. Collection
of new information, however, frequently requires new
resources and the implementation of new systems and
protocols. 

Finding 6: The National Task Force finds that some important
Federal justice assistance programs have been structured in
such a way that they have effectively excluded the courts
from full participation.

Commentary: The Five Percent Set-Aside Program, which
requires States to set aside 5 percent of their Edward Byrne
Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program
formula grant funds for the improvement of criminal justice
records, is a prominent example. The definition of "local
unit of government" used to determine eligibility for
pass-through funding has been interpreted to exclude most
courts because they are not considered a unit of city or
county government (municipal courts, as a part of city or
county government, are an exception). 

As another example, courts are expressly excluded from
receiving funds for child support services, except in very
particular circumstances. Other examples of the exclusion of
the courts from funding initiatives can be found in the
Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997.

Predictably, these restrictions limit the ability of the
courts to develop the internal systems they need to meet
information requirements arising from Federal legislation.

Finding 7: The National Task Force finds that the response
to information needs arising from Federal legislation has
been most effective in those States that have adopted a
statewide strategy and approach that includes the courts. 

Commentary: Providing the information necessary to support
Federal information needs that arise from Federal
legislation and initiatives can involve numerous State and
local entities, ranging from State social services agencies
to the courts and criminal justice agencies. Given the wide
range of State and local entities that are sometimes
involved in complying with Federal information requirements,
the Task Force believes that the most effective means of
satisfying these requirements is through development and
implementation of statewide strategies. Successful
development and implementation of these statewide strategies
depends upon the involvement of all of the entities,
including the courts and criminal justice agencies. 

Colorado, for example, has created an integrated criminal
justice information system that standardizes data and
communications technology throughout its criminal justice
community, including State-funded courts. This integrated
system is governed by an Executive Policy Board, comprised
of the Executive Directors of the State Departments of
Public Safety, Corrections, and Human Services, as well as
the State Court Administrator and a representative of the
Colorado District Attorneys Council. Under the guidance of
this inclusive coordinating body, Colorado courts and
agencies have "substantially revised" their operations,
forms, and systems to streamline operations. As the
statewide system was being developed and the streamlining of
operations was underway, system planners were able to
integrate Federal information requirements into the new
system.

Finding 8: The National Task Force finds that disposition
reporting requirements impose significant demands on courts,
which, to be met effectively, require greater resources than
currently available to many courts, as well as an effective
statewide approach to meeting disposition reporting
requirements.

Commentary: Disposition reporting is a cornerstone of the
criminal history record information system. Federal
regulations require that covered criminal history records
include, "to the maximum extent feasible," dispositions for
all arrests included in an individual's criminal history
record, within 120 days after the disposition has occurred.
***Footnote124: 28 C.F.R.Sec. 20.37 (1999).*** Disposition
reporting depends upon the State courts, which handle the
vast majority of criminal cases in the United States - some
13 million in 1996. ***Footnote125: See, supra note 8 and
accompanying text.***

The Task Force finds that some courts have had trouble
meeting their disposition reporting demands. In some cases,
these difficulties have resulted from a lack of financial
resources for staff or new technology, which would ease the
courts' reporting burden. In other cases, these difficulties
have resulted from the lack of a coordinated statewide
disposition reporting plan designed to ensure that all of
the appropriate dispositions are reported to the State
criminal history repositories in a prompt and efficient
manner.

VI. National Task Force recommendations

Based on the findings set out in section V, the Task Force
approved the following recommendations:

Recommendation 1: The National Task Force recommends and
encourages the development and implementation of integrated
information systems because these systems, among other
benefits, enhance the capacity to comply with information
needs arising from the implementation of Federal
legislation.

Commentary: In recent years, there has been an important and
appropriate emphasis on the development of integrated
information systems. A recently completed report by the
National Task Force on Court Automation and Integration,
sponsored by BJS and coordinated by SEARCH, the National
Center for State Courts, the National Association for Court
Management, and the Conference of State Court
Administrators, emphasizes the importance of establishing
integrated information systems. That National Task Force
Report defines integration as "the electronic sharing of
information by two or more distinct justice entities within
a system. The degree to which information systems are
considered 'integrated' depends on who participates, what
information is shared or exchanged, and how data are shared
or exchanged within the system." ***Footnote126: Court
Automation and Integration Task Force Report, p. 2, supra
note 5. For a more detailed explanation of the definition of
integration, see, ibid., pp. 2-4.***

These systems not only improve the capacity to meet
information needs arising from the implementation of Federal
legislation, but also facilitate an integrated and shared
reporting responsibility among components of the criminal
justice system, as opposed to focusing reporting demands on
a particular component of the system. In addition,
integration can help all courts and justice agencies
involved in the justice process achieve their mission in a
more effective and efficient way through enhanced
decisionmaking. The continued development of integrated
criminal justice information systems and their enhanced
ability to interface with new Federal information systems
holds great promise for improving information reporting
capabilities and reducing the demands associated with
information reporting.

Integration efforts should focus not only on criminal
history record information, but also on other criminal
justice information and civil justice information.
Frequently, the courts obtain and use criminal justice
information arising from a variety of judicial actions and
orders. Courts, for example, issue orders requiring
electronic monitoring or restricting child sex offenders
from places frequented by children. Currently, these orders
are not always readily available to law enforcement. In
addition, as noted earlier, there is also a growing demand
for access to civil justice information, such as protective
orders, which could be more readily available if included in
integrated systems. 

Recommendation 2: The National Task Force recommends that
States include all affected parties, including the courts,
in the development and implementation of justice information
systems and in the implementation of information reporting
requirements that arise from Federal legislation.

Commentary: The Task Force believes that the most effective
means of creating integrated justice information systems -
as well as the most effective means of meeting Federal
information needs arising from Federal legislation - is
through a collegial approach, which includes the opportunity
for input and participation from representatives of all
affected courts and agencies. Colorado, as discussed in the
commentary to Task Force Finding 7, has had success in
meeting Federal information reporting requirements and in
integrating its criminal justice information systems,
through such a collegial, statewide approach for crafting
strategies and implementing new systems. ***Footnote127:
Appendix 2 describes how the court systems in three selected
States - Colorado, Florida, and Louisiana - have dealt with
the issues surrounding the implementation of Federal
reporting requirements.***

The Task Force recognizes that the situation in every State
is different, and what has worked for States such as
Colorado may not necessarily work in another State. The Task
Force believes, however, that the underlying principle at
work in Colorado - an integrated statewide strategy devised
with the input of all of the interested parties - is a
strategy that could benefit all of the States as they work
to comply with Federal information-reporting requirements.

Recommendation 3: The National Task Force recommends that
courts and justice agencies explore and provide for the use
of civil justice information for criminal justice purposes.

Commentary: As noted in the Task Force's findings, reporting
requirements drawing on civil justice information have
grown. This increasing use of civil justice information is a
recognition that some civil justice information, including
information from family courts, is useful to criminal
justice agencies, particularly in instances in which the
courts have issued restraining orders, home confinement
orders, civil commitment orders, or other civil orders that
implicate criminal justice concerns. The Task Force notes
that additional groundwork may be necessary, such as the
creation of a common "data dictionary," to facilitate the
use of civil justice information. 

The Task Force noted that the increased use of civil and
criminal justice information should lead to a reevaluation
of the way in which most courts and justice agencies
organize their records. The Task Force noted that the
program begun by the Conference of State Court
Administrators and the National Association for Court
Management to develop national functional standards for
automated trial court management systems should provide a
critical foundation for the exchange of information between
civil and criminal dockets and with State and national
databases. Task Force members observed that the advances in
livescan and automated fingerprint information system
technology will accelerate this trend. Many Task Force
members believe that this technology will fuel a change in
court recordkeeping practices from the current case or
arrest cycle number system to a system that uses the
individual, rather than a case number, as the basis for the
recordkeeping system. If so, this could create a mechanism
for the compilation of comprehensive records of an
individual's involvement with the justice system, be it
through the system's criminal or civil component.

Recommendation 4: The National Task Force recommends that in
order to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of State
and local courts and justice agencies, these organizations
should work with Congress and relevant Federal departments
and agencies to:

a) identify and evaluate the purposes of and need for
imposing new reporting requirements and determine what
information resources are currently available; 

b) define, with specificity, the information to be reported
while retaining flexibility to take advantage of new
technologies;

c) identify collateral consequences of imposing these
requirements;

d) ensure that appropriate Federal financial resources reach
all of the entities that are involved in fulfilling the
information needs arising from Federal legislation,
particularly the courts; and

e) evaluate whether proposed reporting requirements create
conflicting or ambiguous demands on the State and local
justice agencies required to implement them.

Commentary: The National Task Force urges the Congress and
State and local courts and justice agencies to work together
to identify all significant reporting requirements or
expectations proposed in Federal legislation; to clearly
identify which parts of the criminal justice system are
being asked to participate in a reporting requirement or
request; and to define the information elements that are
involved in any information reporting requirement or
request, prior to enacting a mandate. Consultations between
Congress, relevant Federal departments and agencies, and
representatives of the State and local courts and justice
agencies that will be charged with carrying out the proposed
mandates will promote greater efficiency and
cost-effectiveness in the implementation of mandates.

The National Task Force believes that such consultations
will not only help apprise the Congress of the best and most
efficient ways to collect the desired information, but will
also help remove any ambiguities over what information is
required and who is to provide it. Obviously, vagueness
creates uncertainty at the State and local levels; has the
potential to create unnecessary costs for erroneous or
incomplete reporting; and, of course, has the potential for
failing to provide an intended or effective response to the
Federal legislation.

The National Task Force recommendation that Congress,
relevant Federal departments and agencies, and State and
local courts and justice agencies work together to evaluate
the cost to State and local courts and justice agencies is
based on the same rationale as the Unfunded Mandate Reform
Act (UMRA). ***Footnote128: Pub. L. No. 104-4 (1995).*** The
more information that Congress has about the impact of the
information reporting requirements imposed on State and
local courts and justice agencies, the easier it will be for
Congress to make an informed decision as to whether to
proceed with the mandate and what form the mandate should
take. UMRA is rarely applicable to information needs arising
from the implementation of Federal legislation because these
needs are infrequently likely to meet the $50 million per
year in direct costs required to trigger UMRA, or the
reporting requirements that are tied to State eligibility
for Federal grants, and are therefore outside of the UMRA
definition of a "mandate." While it is possible that one
mandate will not cost much to implement, the cumulative
demand of mandates on the courts and justice agencies can be
substantial.

Recommendation 5: Information needs arising from the
implementation of Federal legislation or expectations
should, where possible, leave States with substantial
discretion to determine the manner in which the State will
comply with the reporting requirement or expectation.

Commentary: The National Task Force recognizes the
importance for standardized reporting of information;
however, the National Task Force recommends that Congress,
to the greatest extent possible, set goals for the States,
allowing the State and local courts and justice agencies to
determine how they can best meet that goal. 

When establishing reporting responsibilities, the National
Task Force recommends that Congress and relevant Federal
departments and agencies tailor those requirements to track
existing State data collection and usage practices to
maximize the efficiency and effectiveness with which State
and local courts and justice agencies will be able meet
those information needs. To the extent that Federal
information reporting requirements and expectations exceed
preexisting local practice, Federal financial support should
be made available to facilitate the collection and
processing of the information requested.

The National Task Force recognizes that there is a degree of
tension between this recommendation and Recommendation 4,
which calls for a careful delineation of data elements to be
reported and which agencies are to report the information.
The goal of the National Task Force is to promote a
cooperative relationship between the Federal Government and
State and local courts and justice agencies. To assist the
State and local courts and justice agencies in providing the
information required, the National Task Force believes that
giving State and local entities flexibility is essential,
but that at the same time, Congress and Federal departments
and agencies must provide as much guidance as possible to
assist State and local courts and justice agencies to
provide the type of information best suited to meet Federal
information needs.

Recommendation 6: The National Task Force recommends that
State and local courts and justice agencies work together
and with Congress and the appropriate Federal departments
and agencies to design and implement necessary reporting
mechanisms.

Commentary: The National Task Force believes that State and
local courts and justice agencies must be willing to work
with one another and with the Federal Government to identify
and resolve mandate implementation problems, and to assist
the Federal Government in its efforts to address national
problems. Specifically, State and local courts,
repositories, law enforcement agencies, correctional
agencies and prosecutors should work so that standards and
implementation issues can be resolved in a collegial manner.
The National Task Force believes that consultation with all
relevant parties, particularly those State and local courts
or justice agencies that would be responsible for meeting
the information requirements, would maximize the efficient
and effective collection of data to meet national
information needs.

Recommendation 7: The National Task Force recommends that
Congress provide funding to State and local courts and
justice agencies sufficient to implement Federal information
reporting requirements and expectations. 

Commentary: In order to ensure the effective implementation
of Federal information requirements and expectations, the
Federal Government should provide States with sufficient
financial support, both in terms of the initiation costs of
a new information reporting requirement, and in terms of
recurring costs necessary to meet Federal information needs.
State and local courts and justice agencies do not currently
receive Federal funding sufficient to meet the costs of
meeting the information demands arising from Federal
legislation. In response to Task Force inquiries, for
example, Louisiana officials reported substantial
shortfalls, especially arising from startup costs. In
addition, Louisiana reported that the annual operating costs
of the Louisiana Protective Order Registry (LOPR), which
amount to more than $860,000 per year, are funded without
direct Federal support. ***Footnote129: See table 3, Annual
Recurring Costs, in appendix 2.***

Recommendation 8: The National Task Force recommends the
establishment of a catalogue of Federal programs and
initiatives that impose information reporting requirements
to be met by State and local courts and justice agencies.

Commentary: As State and local courts and justice agencies
continue to work to automate their records and update their
information systems and technology, it is the sense of the
Task Force that State and local courts and justice agencies
would find a catalogue of Federal information needs and
expectations to be beneficial as they design new systems.
Such a comprehensive catalogue, with periodic updates, would
allow State and local courts and justice agencies to ensure
that they are complying with all existing information
reporting requirements imposed by Federal legislation or
regulation. The information-reporting requirements
identified by the National Task Force in section III of this
report are examples of the types of provisions that might be
included in such a catalogue. One way to establish such a
catalogue would be for the Congress to establish a
requirement that the Office of Management and Budget
initiate such a catalogue and update it on an annual basis. 

Appendix 1:

Task Force participants

Chairman: Honorable Robert M. Bell, Chief Judge, Court of
Appeals of Maryland

Member

Jerry L. Benedict, Director, Office of Court Administration,
Texas

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

Richard C. Carlson, Deputy Director of Administration,
Arizona Department of Corrections

Dr. Hugh M. Collins, Judicial Administrator, Supreme Court
of Louisiana

Sue K. Dosal, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of
Minnesota

Sheila Gonzalez, Executive Officer and Clerk, Ventura County
Superior Court, California

Dr. Robert C. Harrall, State Court Administrator, Supreme
Court of Rhode Island

Jean Itzin*, Planning and Policy Administrator, Strategic
Planning and Systems Integrity Section, Criminal Justice 
Information Services, Florida Department of Law Enforcement

Barbara C. King**, Director, Information Technology and
Communications Division, Department of Public Safety and
Correctional Services, Maryland

J. Denis Moran, Director of State Courts, Wisconsin
Edward L. Papps***, Director of Computer Services, 16th
District Judicial Court of Missouri

Thomas Ralston, Trial Court Administrator, Superior Court of
Delaware

Theron A. Schnure, Assistant Director, Policy Development 
and Planning Division, Connecticut Office of Policy and
Management

Cal Sieg, Unit Chief, Access Integrity Unit, Programs
Support Section, Criminal Justice Information Services
Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation

Alan Slater, Executive Officer, Orange County Superior
Court, California

Prof. George B. Trubow, Director, Center for Information
Technology and Privacy Law, The John Marshall Law School,
Chicago, Illinois

Richelle "Chell" Uecker,(+) Deputy Judicial District
Administrator, Hennepin County District Court, Minnesota

Donna M. Uzzell, Director, Criminal Justice Information
Services, Florida Department of Law Enforcement

Lawrence P. Webster(++), Director, Administrative Office of
the Courts, Delaware

Robert Wessels, Court Manager, Harris County Criminal Courts
at Law, Texas

Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice
Carol G. Kaplan, Chief, Criminal History Improvement
Programs,

National Center for State Courts
Kay Farley, Senior Policy Analyst II, Office of Government
Relations

Dr. Thomas A. Henderson, Executive Director, Office of
Government Relations

Edward H. O'Connell, Jr., Senior Counsel

SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and
Statistics

Sheila J. Barton, Deputy Executive Director

Robert R. Belair, General Counsel

Gary R. Cooper, Executive Director

Owen M. Greenspan, Justice Information Services Specialist

Paul L. Woodard, Senior Counsel

* Ms. Itzin served as an alternate for Donna Uzzell.
** Ms. King is now in private consulting.
*** Mr. Papps is now Senior Court Technology Associate with
the National Center for State Courts.
(+)Ms. Uecker served as an alternate for Sue Dosal.
(++) Mr. Webster is now Justice Information Systems
Specialist with SEARCH.

Participants' biographies

Honorable Robert M. Bell

The Honorable Robert M. Bell is Chief Judge of the Court of
Appeals of Maryland, the highest court in the State. Prior
to serving in this position, Judge Bell served as a Judge
for the Court of Special Appeals, 6th Appellate Circuit;
Associate Judge, Baltimore City Circuit Court, 8th Judicial
Circuit; and Judge of the District of Maryland, District 1,
Baltimore City. He is the only active judge to have served
at least 4 years on each of the four judicial levels in the
State of Maryland.                           

Judge Bell has served as Chair of the Maryland Judicial
Conference since 1996, and is a member of the Hall of
Records Commission and the Library Committee of the State
Law Library. He is also a member of the National, American,
Maryland State, Baltimore City, and Monumental City Bar
Associations.

In addition to his judicial duties, Judge Bell serves on the
Board of Trustees of the Baltimore Museum of Art; the Board
of Directors of Hope House, Inc.; the Board of Directors of
Collington Square Non-Profit Corporation; the Board of
Directors of The African-American Community Foundation,
Inc.; the Board of Visitors of the University of Maryland
Law School; and the Board of Trustees of the Chesapeake
Foundation for Human Development, Inc.

Judge Bell received his A.B. from Morgan State University
(Maryland) and his J.D. from Harvard University Law School.

Jerry L. Benedict

Jerry L. Benedict is Director of the Office of Court
Administration for the State of Texas. He has served in this
position since 1995. Prior to this position, he was an
Assistant Attorney General in the General Counsel Division
of the Texas Office of the Attorney General, where he served
in several capacities throughout his tenure, including
appropriations liaison to the Texas Legislature; Director of
the Office of Administrative Counsel; Director of the
Intergovernmental Relations Division; and as staff in the
Energy Division.

Mr. Benedict also served as a State Representative from
Brazoria County in the Texas Legislature for 6 years. During
his legislative service, he was a member of the Judicial
Affairs, Security Sanctions, and Natural Resources
Committees. During and prior to this time, he also was
engaged in the private practice of law.

Mr. Benedict is a graduate of the University of Texas at
Austin with a bachelor's degree in business administration.
He also received a J.D. from the University of Texas School
of Law.

Kenneth E. Bischoff

Since 1987, Kenneth E. Bischoff has served as Director of
the Division of Administrative Services for the Alaska
Department of Public Safety. Mr. Bischoff's responsibilities
include management for the State's criminal records
repository; data processing, including the Alaska Public
Safety Information Network (motor vehicles and law
enforcement); and general administration of the Department,
including accounting, personnel, and contracting.

Prior to his current position, Mr. Bischoff was Director of
Finance for the Alaska Department of Administration. He also
has served as Audit Manager with the Division of Legislative
Audit for the Alaska Legislature.

Mr. Bischoff is Alaska's representative to the Western
Identification Network. He also serves as Chair of the
SEARCH Board of Directors and Membership Group. He is the
State's past member to the FBI's National Crime Information
Center Advisory Policy Board.

Mr. Bischoff received his B.S. degree in accounting and
quantitative methods from the University of Oregon and is a
Certified Public Accountant.

Richard C. Carlson

Richard C. Carlson has been employed by the State of Arizona
for the past 25 years. He is currently Deputy Director of
Administration for the Arizona Department of Corrections.
From 1978 to 1999, he served as Assistant Director of the
Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS). 

Mr. Carlson previously served in various capacities with the
State, including Data Processing Manager and
Telecommunications Specialist for DPS, and Computer
Operations Manager with the Department of Finance. He also
held the positions of Computer Services Administrator for
the Phoenix Police Department and Mission Control Computer
Operations Manager for the Manned Spacecraft Center of NASA
in Houston.

Mr. Carlson is a past President of the National Law
Enforcement Telecommunications System (NLETS) and is
currently serving on the Drug Enforcement Administration's
National Drug Pointer Index Steering Committee, the National
Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center Advisory
Board, and the NLETS Operating Procedures Committee.

Mr. Carlson attended the Arizona State University College of
Business Administration and Advanced Business Administration
Program, as well as Phoenix College. He has completed
numerous technical training courses. 

Dr. Hugh M. Collins

Dr. Hugh M. Collins has been the Judicial Administrator of
Louisiana and the Chief Executive Officer of the Judiciary
Commission of Louisiana since 1988. He has served in the
Judicial Administrator's Office for more than 20 years,
having previously held the positions of Acting Judicial
Administrator, Acting Chief Executive Officer of the
Judiciary, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Deputy Chief
Judicial Administrator, and Deputy Judicial Administrator
for Systems Analysis and Planning. Dr. Collins also has
taught mathematics for the Department of Psychiatry and
Neurology at the Tulane University School of Medicine.

Dr. Collins is a member of numerous civic and professional
organizations, including the Board of Directors of the
National Center for State Courts (NCSC), past-President of
the Conference of State Court Administrators, Chair of the
Advisory Committee to the NCSC's Determining Judgeship Needs
Project, and President of the Board of Directors of Alliance
Franchise. He also is a member at-large of the SEARCH
Membership Group and serves on the SEARCH Board of
Directors. 

Dr. Collins received his B.S. in mathematics from Boston
College and his Ph.D. from Tulane University (Louisiana). He
is also a graduate of the Institute for Court Management.

Sue K. Dosal

Minnesota State Court Administrator Sue K. Dosal took office
in 1982. Prior to her current position, Ms. Dosal served as
Senior Staff Attorney with the National Center for State
Courts.

Ms. Dosal also has held the positions of Staff Director for
the Florida Legislature's Joint Select Committee on Judicial
Personnel; Deputy State Court Administrator of Florida;
visiting faculty member of Florida State University College
of Law; and staff member of the Institute for Court
Management (ICM).

Ms. Dosal is a past President of the Conference of State
Court Administrators. She is a member of the American,
Minnesota, and Hennepin County (Minnesota) Bar Associations,
and of the National Association for Court Management. She is
also a current member and a past Fellow of the ICM.

Ms. Dosal holds a B.A. degree from the University of
Minnesota, an M.S.J.A. from the University of Denver College
of Law, and a J.D. from the William Mitchell College of Law.

Sheila Gonzalez

Sheila Gonzalez is Executive Officer and Clerk of the
Ventura County (California) Superior Court. She is also on
the Board of Directors of the National Center for State
Courts (NCSC), serves on the Judicial Council of California
as an advisory member, and is Vice President of the
Coalition for Justice.

In 1995, Ms. Gonzalez received the Judicial Council's
Distinguished Service Award for contributions to and
leadership in the profession of judicial administration, and
in 1993 she received the Warren E. Burger Award presented by
NCSC for outstanding achievements in the field of court
administration.

She is a past President of both the National Association for
Court Management (NACM) and the Association of Municipal
Court Clerks of California. She is a member of a number of
statewide committees, including the Judicial Council Court
Administrators Committee, which she chaired for 2 years, and
the Attorney General's Advisory Committee on Criminal
History and Identification Improvement. She formerly served
as Co-Chair of the Judicial Council's Court Technology Task
Force. She also was a member of the Judicial Council's
Commission on the Future of the Courts, its Standing
Committee on Technology, and an advisory member of the Trial
Court Budgeting Commission.

Ms. Gonzalez also has been a member of the faculty at the
National Judicial College, Reno, Nevada; the Institute for
Court Management; the Center for Judicial Education and
Research; NACM; and the California State Bar.

Dr. Robert C. Harrall

Dr. Robert C. Harrall is Administrator of the unified Rhode
Island Court System. He was appointed to this position in
1993, having served in other positions in the Supreme Court
since 1969. During his tenure in the system, he has served
under four Chief Justices. 

In his current position, Dr. Harrall is responsible for
preparing and supervising the judicial budget of $54
million; funding a system of 6 courts with approximately 700
employees; supervising judicial facilities; personnel
management; judicial information systems supporting all
courts statewide, including such related agencies as the
Public Defender, Attorney General, and the Department of
Corrections; judicial planning that is carried out by a
full-time staff involved in both short-term projects and
long-term planning activities; records management; and
representing the court's positions on issues relevant to the
executive and legislative branches, legal profession, and
various community groups.

Beyond his immediate responsibilities at the Supreme Court,
Dr. Harrall has served on a number of special study
commissions and advisory groups addressing specific aspects
of the justice system and/or government at large. He has
taught at several colleges and universities; arranged and
conducted international seminars; and published a number of
articles related to management in the public sector. He also
has originated a national management newsletter, and served
on the National Council of the American Society for Public
Administration, and as an editor of Public Administration
Review. He has consulted extensively with courts in
jurisdictions throughout the United States and Canada.

Dr. Harrall received his Ph.D. in political science from the
University of Connecticut. He also holds an M.P.A. from the
University of Rhode Island and a B.A. from Drew University
(New Jersey). Dr. Harrall was also a Ford Foundation Fellow
at the University of Denver Law Center's Institute for Court
Management.

Jean Itzin

Jean Itzin has worked in the Florida Department of Law
Enforcement's (FDLE) Criminal Justice Information Services
area since 1985. She has been instrumental in the design and
implementation of many statewide information programs,
including the 1988 incident-based Uniform Crime Reports
(UCR) Program, the Offender-Based Transaction System, law
enforcement notification forms for pawn transactions, the
Florida point-of-sale record check program for firearm
purchasers, and the system for sharing civil writs for child
support enforcement, as well as the current major upgrade of
the Florida Crime Information Center (FCIC) and criminal
history repository. 

Ms. Itzin currently supervises the FDLE's Strategic Planning
and Systems Integrity Section, which includes the FCIC audit
program, and coordinates activities for Florida's Criminal
and Juvenile Justice Information Systems Council, which
provides advisory oversight for criminal justice data
sharing in the State. She also manages the State's UCR
Program, as well as the development of a new program for the
tracking of domestic violence. She was previously an
Inspector with the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms.

Ms. Itzin holds a B.S. degree from the University of
Illinois and a M.S. in criminology from Florida State
University. 

Barbara King

Barbara King is the former Director of the Information
Technology and Communications Division of the Maryland
Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services. In
that position, Ms. King managed more than 250 employees who
were engaged in the identification of criminal offenders;
the collection, storage, and dissemination of criminal
history record information; the planning, development,
maintenance, and operation of criminal justice information
systems for use by all executive and judicial branch
criminal justice agencies; and the planning, development,
coordination, maintenance, and operation of automated
information systems within the Department to assist with the
apprehension, supervision, and incarceration of criminal
offenders, and the overall promotion of public safety. 

Ms. King was appointed by Gov. Parris N. Glendening to the
Criminal Justice Advisory Board and was designated the
board's Chair for the remainder of the 3-year term. She also
formerly served as Maryland's governor-appointee to the
SEARCH Membership Group.

Ms. King has a B.S. degree in technological management from
the University of Maryland, University College.

J. Denis Moran

J. Denis Moran assumed his duties as Director of Wisconsin's
State Courts in 1978. Prior to his current position, Mr.
Moran served as Chief Deputy Court Administrator of the
Philadelphia County Court System following service as the
Deputy Court Administrator for Operations and the Director
of Bail Programs, also for the Philadelphia Courts. He also
served in law enforcement in southern California before
entering court administration.

Mr. Moran is a past President of the Conference of State
Court Administrators and past Vice Chair of the National
Center for State Courts. He is currently a member of the
Wisconsin Judicial Council, Wisconsin Judicial Education
Committee, American Bar Association, American Judicature
Society, and the National Association for Court Management.
He was a Fellow of the Institute for Court Management in
1972 and received certification in court administration from
the National Judicial College.

Mr. Moran received a B.S. degree from California State
University, San Diego. He earned his J.D. at Temple
University School of Law.

Edward L. Papps

Edward L. Papps is a Senior Court Technology Associate with
the National Center for State Courts (NCSC). From 1989 to
1999, Mr. Papps was Director of Computer Services for the
16th Judicial Circuit Court of Missouri in Kansas City. 

Mr. Papps has served as a member of the Advisory Committee
on Technology for NCSC. He currently serves on the Board of
Directors for the World Information Technology Congress, and
is the founder of the Judicial National MIS Directors.

Mr. Papps received a B.S.B.A. in systems management from
Rockhurst College (Missouri). 

Thomas Ralston

Thomas Ralston has been Court Administrator for the Superior
Court of Delaware since 1982. Superior Court is a statewide,
general jurisdiction court with 19 judges, 4
commissioners/masters, and 295 employees with an annual
budget of $14.6 million.

Mr. Ralston previously served in administrative capacities
in the public schools of New Castle County, Delaware. He has
served on the Board of Directors of the National Association
for Court Management (NACM) and was Editor of The Court
Manager, NACM's quarterly journal. He currently is NACM's
liaison to the American Bar Association's Task Force on
Reduction of Litigation Cost and Delay. He is also currently
serving a 3-year term on the Forum on the Advancement of
Court Technology (FACT) and is a member of the
NACM/Conference of State Court Administrators' Joint
Technology Committee.

Mr. Ralston is a founding member and past President of the
Mid-Atlantic Association for Court Management. He received
NACM's Award for Merit in 1995 and the NCSC's 1997
Distinguished Service Award.

Mr. Ralston received a B.S. degree and an M.B.A from the
University of Delaware.

Theron A. Schnure

Theron A. Schnure is directing the development of
Connecticut's integrated Criminal Justice Information System
(CJIS) among the criminal justice agencies in both the
judicial and executive branches of the State.

The major initiative is the establishment of an
Offender-Based Tracking System (OBTS), a $23.6 million
project that will link all offender information from the
time of an incident and arrest to the release from
supervision and beyond. Special programs in the Connecticut
CJIS initiative include the National Incident-Based
Reporting System (NIBRS); the National Instant Criminal
Background Check System (NICS); a sex offender registry; a
protective, restraining, and no-contact database; and the
criminal history system. In addition, he is coordinating
Federal and State funding programs to provide for the common
support of the CJIS-OBTS in Connecticut.

Mr. Schnure has been responsible for planning and
formulating policy for the development and conservation of
Connecticut's physical resources and infrastructure,
including the development of public safety programs and
policies, as well as the management and utilization of
census and other statistical data. He has organized and
established intergovernmental agencies and has implemented
programs at the State, regional, and local levels.

In addition to his 27 years with the State of Connecticut,
Mr. Schnure served as an Air Intelligence Officer in the
United States Naval Reserve during the Vietnam conflict. He
is Connecticut's representative to the Membership Group of
SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and
Statistics.

Mr. Schnure received his B.S. degree from Pennsylvania State
University and his M.S. from Florida State University.

Cal Sieg 

Cal Sieg is the Unit Chief of the Access Integrity Unit,
Programs Support Section, Criminal Justice Information
Services Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). He
previously served as an FBI Special Agent since November
1978; he has held field assignments in Omaha, Nebraska; San
Juan, Puerto Rico; Las Cruces, New Mexico; and Dallas,
Texas.

While in the FBI, Mr. Sieg served on task forces involving
violent crimes/fugitives and interstate property crime. He
also worked in the areas of domestic and international
terrorism, white-collar crimes, civil rights violations, and
drugs. In addition, he served as a legal, police, SWAT, and
defensive tactics instructor.

Mr. Sieg received his J.D. from Baylor University and his
B.A. from Chapman College.

Alan Slater

Alan Slater has been Executive Officer of the Orange County
(California) Superior Court since 1981. He served as the
Assistant Executive Officer of that court from 1972 to 1980.
Mr. Slater has primary responsibility for all the
administrative and nonjudicial functions of this
metropolitan general jurisdiction court of 79 judicial
positions, including serving as Jury Commissioner for the
Superior and Municipal Courts of Orange County. In January
1994, he also assumed responsibility for all functions of
the Clerk of the Superior Court.

Mr. Slater is serving or has served on numerous national,
State, and local advisory boards and committees in the field
of judicial administration and is a member of a number of
professional organizations.

Mr. Slater holds a master's degree in judicial
administration from the University of California; an M.B.A.
in administrative management from the University of Southern
California; and a B.S. in business administration from
Rutgers University. He has either attended or served as a
faculty resource or instructor for professional training
programs presented by the University of Southern California,
the Institute for Court Management, National Center for
State Courts, American Bar Association, National Conference
of State Bar Presidents, National Judicial College,
California Judicial Council, California Center for Judicial
Education and Research, and National Association for Court
Management.

George B. Trubow

George B. Trubow is a Professor teaching Torts, Information
Law and Policy, Right to Privacy, and Computers in the Law
at The John Marshall Law School in Chicago. Prof. Trubow is
also Director of the Center for Information Technology and
Privacy Law at the law school.

After trial and appellate practice in Kansas and Missouri,
Prof. Trubow was an Assistant Professor at John Marshall
from 1961 to 1965, when he was appointed a Congressional
Fellow. After the fellowship, he was appointed Deputy
Counsel to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, and
thereafter served as Executive Director of the Maryland
Commission on the Administration of Justice; Director of
Planning, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, U.S.
Department of Justice; and General Counsel to the Committee
on the Right to Privacy, Executive Office of the President,
in the Ford Administration.

Since returning to John Marshall in 1976, Prof. Trubow has
written a variety of publications, chaired numerous American
Bar Association committees, and testified on information and
privacy issues before congressional committees. He is also
the editor of the three-volume work, Privacy Law and
Practice, published in 1987. Prof. Trubow also served on a
panel for the Office of Technology Assessment that examined
the issues concerning DNA profiles for forensic purposes. He
also is a member at-large of the SEARCH Membership Group and
serves on the SEARCH Board of Directors.

Prof. Trubow is a graduate of the University of Michigan,
where he received his A.B. and J.D. degrees. 

Richelle "Chelle" Uecker

As Deputy District Administrator for the Fourth Judicial
District in Hennepin County, Minnesota, Richelle Uecker has
worked in courts for 25 years. For the past 6 years, Ms.
Uecker has been active in developing Total Quality
Management programs and is a member of the district's
Quality Steering Team, which oversees internal and external
customer service programs for the court's quality
improvement initiatives.

Ms. Uecker serves on many State and national advisory
committees. She also acts as a liaison in the criminal
justice community. She promoted and assisted in the
establishment of a training program and new employee
development within the court. She also was instrumental in
the recent planning and development of the court's Public
Service Level program, which provides litigants, the
community, and bar association with improved customer
service. Ms. Uecker has been a key element in the creation
of the court's Community Speakers Bureau, which includes
three work teams in the areas of neighborhoods, law
enforcement, and schools and churches.

Ms. Uecker was appointed by the Hennepin County Board to
represent the courts in review and selection of an
integrated justice computer system and its new jail
facility. She also serves as a member of the State's
criminal and juvenile justice task forces.

Ms. Uecker is a Fellow of the Institute for Court Management
(1995) and serves as a consultant and trainer on customer
service and the quality process to court systems nationally.

Donna M. Uzzell

Donna M. Uzzell was appointed Director of Criminal Justice
Information Services (CJIS) for the Florida Department of
Law Enforcement (FDLE) in November 1996, after serving as
Special Agent in Charge of the Investigative Support Bureau.
The CJIS program provides instant telecommunications
capabilities for law enforcement throughout the State;
criminal justice information storage and retrieval
capabilities in Florida and throughout the entire Nation;
criminal identification services; the ability to document
and analyze criminal activity for the entire State;
statistical and crime trend analysis; criminal record
inquiry services for governmental, private, and public
record requests; improved system integrity through biennial
terminal audits; and a statewide training program for law
enforcement. Prior to her appointment at FDLE, she was a
sergeant with the Tallahassee Police Department and a member
with that agency for 13 years.

In 1988, Ms. Uzzell was elected to the Leon County (Florida)
School Board and completed her 8 years in office, serving 2
years as Board Chair. During the past 8 years, she has
worked on safe school policy and procedures and has
conducted training throughout the State on crisis
intervention, safe school planning, interagency
collaboration, and the Serious Habitual Offender
Comprehensive Action Program (SHOCAP). She currently is an
adjunct professor at Florida State University, teaching in
the School of Criminology. She is also a consultant for Fox
Valley Technical College in Wisconsin.

Ms. Uzzell is a certified crime prevention practitioner and
former D.A.R.E. officer. She has received recognition for
her work in the area of child safety, including a Law
Enforcement Officer of the Year award. She has served on
several statewide task forces on school and child safety and
juvenile justice issues. In 1993, she completed a 4-month
special assignment to the Commissioner of Education on law
enforcement and education collaborative relationships. In
1993, she spent 5 months on special assignment to the
Florida Attorney General's Office developing and
implementing the Florida Community Juvenile Justice
Partnership Grant Program.

Lawrence P. Webster

Lawrence P. Webster is Director of the Delaware
Administrative Office of the Courts. Mr. Webster has spent
more than a decade working with court automation and just
prior to serving in his present position, he was the
Executive Director of Court Technology Programs at the
National Center for State Courts (NCSC). 

Before joining the NCSC, Mr. Webster was Director of Data
Processing for the Utah courts, where he supervised the
automation of the district and circuit courts, and the court
of appeals, and was responsible for maintaining existing
systems in the supreme and juvenile courts. He has also
worked with the United States Attorney in Denver, Colorado,
on the implementation of a case management system and office
automation and assisted the Executive Office of United
States Attorneys with implementation of the system at other
locations.

Mr. Webster has been a member of the National Association
for Court Management and the American Bar Association. He is
currently a member of the Board of Directors of the National
Association for Justice Information Systems. He was
Contributing Editor for the Court Management Quarterly and
also taught a course in computers and system analysis at the
University of Denver College of Law for 4 years.

Mr. Webster holds an M.S. in judicial administration from
the University of Denver College of Law and has done
doctoral work at the University of Colorado at Denver.

Robert Wessels

Robert Wessels is Court Manager for the 14 County Criminal
Courts at Law, Harris County, Texas, a position he has held
since 1976. In this position, he is responsible for the
areas of caseflow management, budget,
legislative/governmental liaison, management information
systems, court support services, policy development, and
evaluation. He has conducted court systems evaluations for
the Governor's Office, Criminal Justice Division (1975-80);
the Judicial Planning Committee (1981-82); and numerous
county governments.

Mr. Wessels has taught in the areas of court management,
judicial administration, and management information systems
as an adjunct professor at the University of Houston, Clear
Lake; Sam Houston State University; the Institute for Court
Management (ICM); and the Texas College for New Judges.

Mr. Wessels is a founding and current member of the Texas
Association for Court Administration. He has served on that
organization's Board of Directors and chaired its
Professional Development Committee. He is Director of the
"Professional Development Program for Texas Court
Administrators and Coordinators," a three-course program he
authored with Judge Paul Ferguson and held under the
auspices of the Texas Judicial College.

Mr. Wessels is the President of the National Association for
Court Management. He also is a member of the Institute for
Judicial Association, the American Judicature Society, and
several other professional organizations. He is the 1989
recipient of the Defensor Pacem Medal awarded annually by
the Criminal Justice Center, Sam Houston State University.
He also was honored by his court administrator colleagues
for his contribution to Texas Trial Court Management when he
was chosen to receive the first "Justice Charles W. Barrow
Award."

Mr. Wessels received his B.A. degree from Sam Houston State
University and his M.A. from the University of Houston,
Clear Lake. In addition, he is a Fellow of the ICM.

Staff biographies

* U.S. Department of Justice

Carol G. Kaplan

Carol G. Kaplan is Chief of the Criminal History Improvement
Programs for the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), U.S.
Department of Justice. In this capacity, she is responsible
for directing and managing all BJS-funded programs that
focus on improving the quality and accessibility of State
and local criminal history records and support the
development of the national criminal record system. Ms.
Kaplan is also responsible for all BJS activity associated
with the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and the
National Child Protection Act. 

Prior to her current appointment, Ms. Kaplan served as the
Assistant Deputy Director of BJS, overseeing programs
relating to criminal justice information policy, record
improvement, and Federal justice statistics. In this
position, she established the BJS publication series dealing
with criminal history record issues and Federal justice
statistics.

Ms. Kaplan has been involved in Federal efforts to support
improvement of the Nation's criminal records since the
inception of the program in BJS' predecessor agency. She
participated in the drafting of initial landmark regulations
governing accuracy, completeness, and confidentiality of
criminal records and ensuring confidentiality of research
data. She has served on numerous interagency task forces
focusing on the development of policies and standards to
support record usage. She was also a charter member of the
Intelligence Systems Policy Review Board.

Ms. Kaplan was formerly an attorney with the Department of
Health, Education and Welfare and the Federal Communications
Commission. She is a graduate of Columbia University School
of Law and Radcliffe College.

* National Center for State Courts

Kay Farley

Kay Farley is Senior Policy Analyst II in the Office of
Government Relations of the National Center for State Courts
(NCSC). She is responsible for monitoring and analyzing
congressional and Federal government agency activity that
would impact State court operations, with particular
emphasis on funding and children and family-related issues.
Ms. Farley is also responsible for informing State court
leaders of national activities and assisting in the
development and articulation of policy for the leadership
and committees of the NCSC, Conference of Chief Justices
(CCJ), Conference of State Court Administrators (COSCA),
National Association for Court Management (NACM), and the
American Judges Association. Ms. Farley serves as liaison
for the NCSC, CCJ, and COSCA with Congress and Federal
government agencies related to funding and children and
family policy. Additionally, Ms. Farley is responsible for
coordinating government relations activities with other
national organizations with common concerns

Prior to joining NCSC, Ms. Farley was Director with MAXIMUS,
Inc. and Coordinator of Children and Family Programs for the
Office of Judicial Administration, Kansas Supreme Court. Ms.
Farley received her B. S. from Illinois State University and
her M.P.A. from the University of Kansas.

Ms. Farley has extensive experience in court-related
programs for children and families, particularly in the
areas of child support enforcement, child welfare, and
juvenile justice. Her experience includes both policy
development and program implementation. Specifically, Ms.
Farley has experience in developing programs, such as court
trustee programs for the enforcement of child support, Court
Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) programs, Foster Care
Review Board programs, and Juvenile Intake and Assessment
programs. Ms. Farley has also been trained as a mediator in
parent-adolescent disputes. As a member of the Kansas
Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Alternative Dispute
Resolution (ADR), Ms. Farley assisted in the development of
recommended training standards and program certification
requirements for court-related ADR programs.

Dr. Thomas A. Henderson

Dr. Thomas A. Henderson is Executive Director of the Office
of Government Relations for the National Center for State
Courts (NCSC). He directs the activities in support of the
national policy initiatives in Congress, the executive
branch and the Federal judiciary of the NCSC, the Conference
of Chief Justices, the Conference of State Court
Administrators, the National Association for Court
Management (NACM), and other associations of State court
leaders. He writes a regular column on national issues and
events affecting State courts for the NCSC's State Court
Journal, and for NACM's publication, The Court Manager.

Dr. Henderson has been involved in the improvement of
judicial management and public administration for many
years. He has directed projects on such subjects as court
unification, child support guidelines, judicial
recordkeeping systems, and caseflow management. Among his
publications are Structuring Justice: The Implications of
Court Unification Reforms (co-author) and Modifying and
Updating Child Support Orders (co-author), as well as many
articles and reports. He has organized and participated in
numerous workshops on public management. He is co-author of
two teaching simulations of the budget process.

Dr. Henderson was formerly Executive Director of the
Criminal Justice Statistics Association; co-founder of the
Institute for Economic and Policy Studies, Inc.; Staff
Associate with the Council of State Governments; and
professor of political science at the University of Florida
and Georgia State University. He holds a B.A. from Haverford
(Pennsylvania) and a Ph.D. from Columbia University.

Edward H. O'Connell, Jr.

Edward H. O'Connell, Jr. is a Senior Counsel in the
Washington, D.C., office of the National Center for State
Courts. Prior to working with the Center, Mr. O'Connell
spent 19 years as congressional staff: he was Counsel for
the House Judiciary, Energy and Commerce, and Government
Operations Committees. He also was Program Director and
Chief of staff for Sen. Charles Mathias (R-MD).

Before joining the legislative branch, Mr. O'Connell had
spent 16 years with the U.S. Department of Justice, rising
to become one of the youngest "supergrade" executives in the
Department's history. He served as Counsel in the Legal and
Legislative Office; a Trial Attorney in the Civil Rights
Division; and as a Mediator, Regional Director and Executive
Assistant to the Director in the Community Relations
Service.

Mr. O'Connell also worked in the General Counsel's Office of
the U.S. Air Force just after his graduation from the
Indiana University School of Law. While in law school, he
received a scholarship and was a member of the Indiana Law
Journal. His undergraduate studies were at Purdue
University, where he received a B.S. in engineering law.

SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and
Statistics

Sheila J. Barton

As a Deputy Director of SEARCH, Sheila J. Barton is
responsible for the development and implementation of a
multifaceted program of public policy analysis;
documentation of State and Federal information policy
development, education, and assistance to State and local
policymakers; the conduct of national conferences and
workshops on justice information policy issues; and the
publication of timely studies on justice information policy.
She is also In-house Counsel and staff to the SEARCH Law and
Policy Program Advisory Committee and Board of Directors.

Prior to joining SEARCH, Ms. Barton was a Municipal Judge in
Cheyenne, Wyoming, and also was engaged in the private
practice of law. She also has held the positions of Public
Defender for Cheyenne and Staff Attorney to the Wyoming
Supreme Court. She previously served in the New York State
Department of Correctional Services, Office of the Special
Legal Assistant to the Commissioner, and as a Legal
Specialist for the Department's Division of Health Services.
Prior to her service in New York, she was Associate County
Judge for Lincoln County, Nebraska. 

She holds a B.A. from Augustana College (South Dakota) and a
J.D. from the University of Nebraska College of Law.

Robert R. Belair

Robert R. Belair is a partner with the Washington, D.C., law
firm of Mullenholz, Brimsek & Belair and is General Counsel
to SEARCH. He also serves as CEO of Privacy and Legislative
Associates, a legal and policy consulting firm. The
principal emphasis of Mr. Belair's practice is privacy and
information law involving administrative, legislative, and
litigation activity. His practice includes counseling in all
aspects of privacy and information law, including credit,
financial, educational, criminal, juvenile, medical and
employment records, and telecommunications; defamation;
intellectual property, including software copyright;
constitutional law; and criminal justice administration.

As General Counsel to SEARCH, Mr. Belair has participated in
SEARCH's privacy and security programs and has authored many
studies in the area of criminal justice information law and
policy. He was actively involved in the development of
SEARCH's revised standards of criminal history record
information, Technical Report No. 13: Standards for the
Security and Privacy of Criminal History Record Information
(Third Edition).

Mr. Belair has served as consultant to numerous Federal
agencies and commissions on information policy and law. He
is former Deputy General Counsel and Acting Counsel of the
Domestic Council Committee on the Right of Privacy, Office
of the President.

Mr. Belair is a graduate of Kalamazoo College (Michigan) and
Columbia University School of Law.

Owen M. Greenspan

Owen M. Greenspan has been a Criminal Justice Information
Services Specialist with SEARCH since 1995. In this
position, Mr. Greenspan provides technical assistance in
support of the National Criminal History Improvement Program
activities conducted by SEARCH. He also provides assistance
involving other projects of both the Law and Policy and
Systems and Technology Programs of SEARCH. Prior to joining
the SEARCH staff, Mr. Greenspan was Deputy Commissioner,
Office of Identification Services, New York State Division
of Criminal Justice Services. As Deputy Commissioner, he was
responsible for the maintenance and dissemination of the 4
million records of the State's computerized criminal history
file. He also oversaw the processing of employment or
licenser-related fingerprint submissions from client
agencies, and planned and implemented the statewide
Automated Fingerprint Identification System in New York. He
also developed a legislative program to enhance the safety
of children through strengthened criminal penalties,
improved missing children investigative capabilities, and
safety education. 

Prior to his appointment as Deputy Commissioner in 1988, Mr.
Greenspan served 20 years as a uniformed member of the New
York City Police Department. His last assignment was
Commanding Officer of the Identification Section, where he
was responsible for the development, modification, and
implementation of programs and practices spanning line and
support operations and the supervision of professional,
technical, and clerical staff.

Mr. Greenspan was New York's governor appointee to SEARCH
and served as Vice Chair of the Membership Group and the
Board of Directors. He has been a member of the National
Task Force on Criminal History Record Disposition Reporting
and served on several advisory groups dealing with the
national criminal history and identification systems.

Mr. Greenspan holds an M.P.S. in criminal justice from Long
Island University, C.W. Post College (New York), and a B.A.
in social sciences from Fordham University (New York). 

Paul L. Woodard

Paul L. Woodard is Senior Counsel in the Law and Policy
Program at SEARCH and has been associated with SEARCH since
1974. As Senior Counsel, Mr. Woodard has been involved in
providing technical assistance to State and local criminal
justice agencies dealing with the development of policies
and procedures and writing legislation for managing criminal
history records. In addition, he has provided policy support
to special studies focusing on the information practices of
sealing and purging criminal history record information;
media access to criminal justice information; and improving
criminal history record disposition reporting. Mr. Woodard
also was the project coordinator of a contract with the FBI
and principal author of a report pursuant to that contract
titled, "A Study of Non-Criminal Justice Access to and Use
of the Interstate Identification Index."

Mr. Woodard has conducted projects to audit the security and
privacy policies and procedures and data quality levels of
major State repositories of criminal history records. In
addition, he has designed data quality audit programs to be
conducted by State audit officials at both the State
repository and local agency levels.

Prior to his association with SEARCH, Mr. Woodard served as
President of Studies in Justice; Associate Deputy Attorney
General for Legislation and Congressional Relations, U.S.
Department of Justice; Assistant Administrator and General
Counsel, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration; Chief
Counsel and Staff Director, Subcommittee on Constitutional
Rights, U.S. Senate; Chief Counsel and Staff Director,
Subcommittee on Separation of Powers, U.S. Senate; Assistant
Counsel, Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and Procedures, U.S.
Senate; and an Associate with the law firm of Dechert, Price
and Rhoads, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Mr. Woodard is a graduate of the University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill, and the University of Virginia Law
School.

Appendix 2:

Implementation of Federal legislation imposing reporting
requirements and expectations on selected State judicial
systems

The National Task Force sought empirical data from the
States of Colorado, Florida and Louisiana to illustrate how
different State court systems have dealt with the issues
surrounding the implementation of Federal reporting
requirements. The Colorado data were compiled during a site
visit, and the Florida and Louisiana data are based on
written submissions. Summaries of those responses are as
follows.

Colorado

The National Center for State Courts recommended Colorado as
one of the case study sites because the jurisdiction has
implemented a statewide integrated justice information
system. Project staff coordinated the site visit with State
Court Administrator Steven V. Berson and his staff. The site
visit was completed on February 22, 1999. Prior to the
visit, project staff provided Mr. Berson and his staff with
a series of 10 questions and summaries of the applicable
Federal statutes. ***Footnote130: The Colorado portion of
this Appendix was prepared by David J. Roberts, SEARCH
Deputy Executive Director.***

The Colorado Integrated Criminal Justice Information System
(CICJIS) established an integrated computer information
system that standardizes data and communications technology
throughout the criminal justice community; that is, law
enforcement, district attorneys, State-funded courts, and
State-funded youth and adult corrections. CICJIS is governed
by an Executive Policy Board comprised of the executive
directors of the Department of Public Safety, Department of
Corrections, Department of Human Services, and the Colorado
District Attorneys Council, as well as the State Court
Administrator. ***Footnote131: For more complete information
regarding the CICJIS and ICON systems, see the Colorado
profile on SEARCH's integration Web site at
http://www.search.org/integration or on the Colorado State
Web site at http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/cicjis/.***

CICJIS facilitates tracking the complete life cycle of a
criminal case through its various stages involving all
criminal justice agencies, without unnecessary duplication
of data entry and data storage. CICJIS is a closed network,
linking five host systems - law enforcement (CCIC),
Department of Corrections (DOC), District Attorneys Council
(CDAC), Division of Youth Corrections (DYC), and the
Judiciary (ICON) - via Sybase middleware and a Central Index
containing information on offenders, names, various
identifiers, demographics, offender status, and events.
CICJIS became operational in May 1998.

CICJIS and ICON, which, together with several minor
applications, support 2,500 court and probation users, were
designed to meet the operational needs of court and
probation staff statewide. The systems were driven by
operational imperatives confronting State and local users.
This broader design and implementation effort enabled
developers to seamlessly incorporate many of the reporting
requirements of the Federal reporting initiatives
contemplated in this research.

This research posed a series of specific questions, which
are presented below, along with the responses from Colorado
State officials. Project staff met with Dr. Robert Roper, a
member of the CICJIS Task Force, and several of his staff in
the Integrated Information Services (IIS) Division, Colorado
Judicial Branch, in February 1999 to review these issues.

1. What is the current status of the implementation of the
reporting requirements in the State? What role does/did the
judiciary play in meeting those requirements?

Before CICJIS, the judiciary sent information (for example,
dispositions, sentences, and so on) to the Colorado Bureau
of Investigation (CBI) in batch, where they were
subsequently used to populate the registries for local and
Federal reporting. With CICJIS, the information becomes
real-time; as soon as it is entered into the court system
(ICON), it automatically populates CJIS and is available to
users throughout. The courts have implemented new
fingerprinting procedures, which have resulted in 30 percent
to 40 percent more fingerprints being captured.

To build CICJIS, the judiciary, together with the partner
organizations identified above, substantially revised their
operations, data collection forms, and information systems.
These changes were implemented to streamline operations and
build the integrated linkages envisioned in CICJIS. As these
changes were being implemented, developers simply
incorporated the reporting requirements that are
contemplated in the Federal initiatives that are the subject
of study. Because CICJIS required significant planning,
redesign, and business process reengineering, the technical
development team leveraged that opportunity for change to
incorporate the necessary Federal reporting requirements.

2. How much understanding is there among judicial officials
of the requirements of the law?

There is very good understanding by the judiciary. Moreover,
the Chief Justice is about to issue a directive on data
quality that will underscore the importance of implementing
procedures to ensure that entry of critical data into the
judiciary's automated information system (ICON) is complete,
accurate and timely. ***Footnote132: Directive 99-02, Coding
Procedures Relating to Public Safety, Resource Utilization &
Management. Office of the Chief Justice, Supreme Court of
Colorado.*** The directive will enable the Chief Justice to
tie funding for courts to the quality of their data. The
program is being implemented in three pilot courts, where
teams are looking at how they are collecting data, checking
computer reports, etc. They are set to be finished by June
1, 1999, and will begin actively monitoring data quality of
courts by July 1, 1999. Data quality will be analyzed at
both the State and local levels on a continuous basis.

3. What were the major events that lead to the current
status?

The primary event leading to the current status is the
implementation of CICJIS, which went operational on May 4,
1998.

4. What strengths and what weaknesses did the State
judiciary and trial courts bring to the problem of
implementation?

Fingerprints for positive identification were the major
weakness. The judiciary implemented a new fingerprinting
form and automated the fingerprinting order to ensure that
prints were taken on all eligible arrestees. They also
created a fingerprint docket, which is produced together
with the regular docket. The clerk then checks to ensure
that everyone is appropriately fingerprinted.

Strengths are the judiciary's strong support of ICON and
CICJIS. There is operational payoff in improved information,
better quality, more timely data, and - as a consequence -
better decisions.

5. At what point did the judiciary become involved/aware of
the issues?

The judiciary really became aware of the issues within the
past 5 years, as ICON and CICJIS were planned and
implemented.

6. What were the technical resources required to meet the
requirements and how were they distributed within the
judiciary?

The IIS Division is a 43-person team, including some
technical staff who provide on-site, regional training. The
State consolidated its computer operations to a mainframe
from 14 regional AS-400 systems. They have real-time
replication with off-site business recovery. They maintain
one technical support staff per 350 users, which is
extraordinarily small and speaks to the quality of their
operations.

7. Who provided the leadership in meeting the requirements?

The Chief Justice provided very strong leadership throughout
the planning and implementation of CICJIS. Strong leadership
also came from the State Court Administrator, key State
legislators, and key judges around the State.

8. Where did the financial, technical, management, and
administrative resources come from in addressing the problem
(Federal, State, local)?
ICON is fully funded by the State. CICJIS is funded 75
percent by the State; 25 percent by Federal funds (Byrne and
CHRI funds).

9. How did the effort to meet these requirements shift the
priorities of the judiciary?

The judiciary now has a significantly greater demand for
data. The ready availability of timely, complete, and
accurate information has shown the judiciary what is
possible, and their appetite has grown for even more data.

10. Which local jurisdictions have had the greatest success
and which the least, and why?

CICJIS and ICON are statewide applications. One of the
approaches Colorado has taken is to build from centralized
legacy systems, with middleware solutions. Consequently,
there is not significant variation in the capabilities of
local jurisdictions, as seen in decentralized approaches.

The single key to success is leadership. The Chief Justice,
key legislators, judges, and the State Court Administrator
had the authority, the vision, the willingness, and the
ability to implement the necessary applications.

Florida

This section is based upon a written submission made to the
Task Force by Kenneth R. Palmer, Florida State Courts
Administrator, in February 2000. The responses are organized
around the 10 questions submitted by project staff.

1. What is the current status of the implementation of the
reporting requirements in the State? What role does/did the
judiciary play in meeting those requirements?

In Florida, for the most part, the responsibility for
implementation of Federal mandates in the areas of
protective orders, sex offender registries, and welfare
reform fall under the jurisdiction of various criminal
justice or other executive branch entities, including the
Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE), Department of
Corrections (DOC), Department of Revenue (DOR), and local
sheriffs and clerks of court. Although the Florida Office of
the State Courts Administrator (OSCA) does mandate the
collection of statewide Offender-Based Transaction System
(OBTS) data, these submissions do not include data related
to court protection orders and sex offender registration.

Court Protection Orders

The State is currently meeting the reporting requirements of
court protection orders through the entry of domestic
violence injunction data into the Florida Crime Information
Center (FCIC) database.

Sexual Offender Registry

On October 1, 1997, Florida's Public Safety Information Act
went into effect. This act responded to the Federal
Wetterling Act. Additionally, the 1998 Legislature passed
various revisions and additions to the Florida Sexual
Predator Act and the Florida Public Safety Information Act
to conform to Federal requirements and further enhance the
effectiveness of sexual predator and offender laws. These
changes included:

* Mandatory registration requirements with the Department of
Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles.

* Notification of the presence of a sexual predator by the
sheriff of the county or the chief of police of the
municipality to each licensed day care center, elementary
school, middle school, and high school within a 1-mile
radius of the predator's residence.

* Clarification regarding the registration of out-of-State
offenders and sexual predators/offenders as convicted
felons.

* Clarification of residence and conviction terms.

* Clarification regarding registration of sexual
predators/offenders who are under the custody of a local law
enforcement facility or under Federal supervision. 

* The Jimmy Ryce Involuntary Civil Commitment for Sexually
Violent Predators' Treatment and Care Act.

* Additional statute criteria for sexual predator status
designations.

Welfare Reform Act of 1996

The Court role in meeting the reporting requirements of the
State case registry was minimal. The Florida Supreme Court
adopted a Notice of Social Security Number form to be filed
in child support cases for use in IV-D child support
enforcement. The clerks of court worked with the Florida
Department of Revenue (the IV-D agency) to establish
linkages for the transmission of data from the clerks'
offices, through the statewide clerks association, to the
Department of Revenue. This was accomplished via contract
between the DOR and The Florida Association of Court Clerks
and Comptrollers. The workload and cost impact was
significant and compliance required several years of
development work.

2. How much understanding is there among judicial officials
of the requirements of the law?

Court Protection Orders

A clear understanding. In 1998, the Florida Supreme Court
amended rule 12.610, Family Law Rules of Procedure, to
require judges entering orders for protection to issue those
orders on mandatory forms. The primary reason for creating
mandatory injunction forms was to assist law enforcement in
identifying and enforcing the orders. Consistent with the
qualifications for the Federal firearm provisions to apply,
these mandatory orders state that they are final and are
issued after a hearing with notice; and they contain
explicit findings or restraining language indicating clearly
that the court intends the order to protect the victim from
physical harm.

Sexual Offender Registry

Based on information provided by the FDLE's Sexual
Offender/Predator Unit, it would appear that there is a very
clear understanding of the requirements of the law. In
support of these issues, FDLE developed "Guidelines to
Florida Sex Offender Laws," which outline the registry
requirements, agency responsibilities, sexual
predator/offender restrictions, and so on. Under the
Guidelines, clerks of court are required to forward
certified copies to the DOC and FDLE of any order entered by
the court imposing any special condition or restriction on
the sexual offender or predator which restricts or prohibits
access to the victim, if the victim is a minor, or to other
minors. If a sexual offender or predator is not sentenced to
a term of imprisonment, the clerks of court are required to
submit the individual's fingerprints to FDLE. The clerks of
court must also, in certain circumstances, forward to FDLE a
copy of any written order that includes a finding that an
individual is a sexual predator.

Welfare Reform Act of 1996

OSCA sent an advisory to judges regarding the identification
requirements of child support orders. The judiciary has also
been exposed to the requirements through judicial education
programs.

3.   What were the major events that lead to the current
status?
Court Protection Orders

During the 1994 legislative session, the Florida Legislature
addressed issues regarding domestic violence and repeat
violence injunctions. It was determined that a centralized
statewide system for entering domestic violence injunctions
was needed. House Bills 525 and 1949 were passed; they
required the FDLE to create a Domestic and Repeat Violence
Injunction Statewide Verification System by July 1, 1994.

Sexual Offender Registry

The cooperative efforts of all entities involved enabled
Florida to reach the current status.

Welfare Reform Act of 1996

The Florida Legislature recognized the vital role that the
clerks of court play in Florida in the child support system,
and found there to be no viable alternative to the role of
the clerks of court in the collection, safeguarding, and
provision of child support information. As a result,
legislation was passed under which the Department of Revenue
contracted with the Florida Association of Court Clerks and
Comptrollers, and each depository to perform duties with
respect to the operation and maintenance of a State
Disbursement Unit and the non-Title IV-D component of the
State Case Registry, required by the Welfare Reform Act.

The Florida Supreme Court is currently considering a rule,
proposed by the Family Court Steering Committee, that would
address the override process for the family violence
indicator on a record in the Federal case registry.

4. What strengths and what weaknesses did the State
judiciary and trial courts bring to the problem of
implementation?

Court Protection Orders

Because Florida has independent, locally elected clerks of
court, neither the judiciary nor trial court administration
were heavily involved in developing the statewide system.
The clerks of court initially estimated a significant fiscal
impact to automate and report on domestic violence
protection orders. A less expensive, alternative process was
ultimately adopted. Clerks of court are required to furnish
copies of injunctions to the sheriff's office having
jurisdiction over the petitioner. The clerks of court must
also provide a copy of the injunction and related papers to
the sheriff's office or law enforcement agency where the
respondent can be found for service with the injunction. The
sheriffs' offices are responsible for entering the order
into the FCIC. Clerks of court must notify the sheriff's
office when any changes are made to an injunction or when
the injunction has been terminated, so that the injunction
can be updated in the FCIC as appropriate. In an attempt to
obtain the necessary data, several jurisdictions created a
form to be included with the domestic violence injunction
petition.

Also, many agencies inquire into local records, FCIC files
or driver license records in an attempt to gather the
information so that the data can be entered into the FCIC
system.

Sexual Offender Registry

OSCA was not actively involved in development of the system.
Welfare Reform Act of 1996

The State judiciary identified concerns about privacy issues
related to use of social security numbers.

5. At what point did the judiciary become involved/aware of
the issues?
Court Protection Orders

OCSA had no significant involvement with these issues.

Sexual Offender Registry

OCSA was not actively involved in development of the system.
Welfare Reform Act of 1996

The judiciary primarily became involved in the fall of 1998
when the clerks of court requested that the Court adopt a
form to be used in placing a family violence indicator on
State case registry files.

6. What were the technical resources required to meet the
requirements and how were they distributed within the
judiciary?

Court Protection Orders

The technical requirements and the associated technical
resources for the FCIC fall under the jurisdiction of FDLE.

Sexual Offender Registry

The Sexual Offender Registry and the associated technical
resources fall under the jurisdiction of FDLE.

Welfare Reform Act of 1996

Technical resources required by the clerks of court were
extensive and were reviewed by the Florida Association of
Court Clerks and Comptrollers, which provided assistance to
local courts.

7. Who provided the leadership in meeting the requirements?

Court Protection Orders

FDLE has primary responsibility for the protective order
system. 

Sexual Offender Registry

It was a cooperative effort between various entities,
including the courts, FDLE, the DOC, the clerks of court,
local sheriff's offices, and so on.

Welfare Reform Act of 1996

It was a joint effort between the Florida Department of
Revenue, the Florida Association of Court Clerks and
Comptrollers, and 67 clerks of court offices.

8. Where did the financial, technical, management, and
administrative resources come from in addressing the problem
(Federal, State, local)?

Court Protection Orders

The clerks of court are responsible for sending a copy of
the Domestic Violence or Repeat Violence Injunctions to the
local sheriff's office. At that point, the sheriff's office
enters the injunction into FCIC to update the system. Both
the clerks and sheriffs absorb the costs for these
functions. The FDLE, which houses the FCIC system, is
State-funded.

Sexual Offender Registry

FDLE jurisdiction.

Welfare Reform Act of 1996

The Florida Association of Court Clerks and Comptrollers
provides assistance.

9. How did the effort to meet these requirements shift the
priorities of the judiciary?

Court Protection Orders

Not applicable.

Sexual Offender Registry

Not applicable.

Welfare Reform Act of 1996

Not applicable.

10. Which local jurisdictions have had the greatest success
and which the least, and why?

This information is not available at the Court
Administrator's Office.

Louisiana

This section is based upon a written submission made to the
Task Force by Timothy J. Palmatier, Chief Deputy Judicial
Administrator, State of Louisiana, in November 1999. The
responses are organized around the 10 questions submitted by
project staff.

1. What is the current status of the implementation of the
reporting requirements in the State? What role does/did the
judiciary play in meeting those requirements?

Louisiana Protective Order Registry (LPOR)

Participation in the Federal NCIC Protection Order File
(NCIC POF) is currently voluntary. However, 1997 State
legislation mandated that the Judicial Administrator's
Office (JAO) of the Louisiana Supreme Court create and
administer a statewide protective order registry and
transmit these same orders to NCIC. ***Footnote133: The
Louisiana Protective Order Registry (LPOR) is a computerized
database that serves as a repository for temporary
restraining orders, protective orders, preliminary and
permanent injunctions, court-approved consent agreements,
peace bonds, bail restrictions, sentencing orders, and
probation conditions issued for the purpose of preventing
harassment, threats, or violence against an intimate partner
or family member. See:  LPOR Web site at
http://www.lajao.org/lpor.htm.*** In addition, this
legislation mandated that the JAO develop and make available
uniform order forms for use in all courts.

The State of Louisiana is in the process of revising the
design of information systems that provide law enforcement
officers, prosecutors, and judges with the accurate and
timely records needed to make informed decisions. The JAO is
the primary coordinator of this effort with substantial
funding provided through the Louisiana Commission on Law
Enforcement (LCLE).

As part of this effort, Congress, through the LCLE, awarded
grant funds to the JAO to develop the Case Management
Information System (CMIS). LPOR is a part of the CMIS
project. In designing the LPOR database, the JAO has taken
into account the specific criteria governing the entry of
protection orders into the NCIC POF and the same
requirements regarding hit confirmation and record
validation that apply to other FBI "hot files."

Once a judge has signed a protection order, the clerk of
court sends a copy of the order to the registry as
expeditiously as possible, but no later than the end of the
next business day. The order may be sent by facsimile
transmission, courier, or mail. Once received by the LPOR,
each protective order is keyed into the database by a data
entry operator, then verified. An image of the order is also
captured and maintained in the database.

Law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, and civil and
criminal courts will have access to the data stored in the
registry for use in stalking and domestic violence cases.
Law enforcement currently has access to the LPOR via the
Department of Public Safety (DPS) database. The judiciary
and other agencies will have access via a Wide Area Network
that is currently being implemented. The registry will also
expedite record checks for firearm purchases and firearm
permits.

Sex Offenders

The State Police are responsible for sending sex offender
information to the National Sex Offender Registry. This is
accomplished when the DPS receives notification from
probation and parole agencies and sheriff's offices on the
sex offender. Information is then sent to the National
Registry. To date, there is no electronic database for
tracking sex offenders in Louisiana. Paper files within
State Police records are used for tracking and registering
offenders. In the event a sex offender is not placed under
probation or parole, the court will notify State Police.
There are few, if any, of these cases.

The State Police have received a grant for automating their
sex offender registry. Part of the grant requirements for
the State Police is for the automated fingerprint
identification system (AFIS) to have the ability to transfer
fingerprint flats - a $5.4 million cost. The State Police
are attempting to get funding for AFIS to transmit these
flats.

The CMIS used by the Louisiana Supreme Court is responsible
for collecting electronic dispositions of all criminal
cases, including those involving sex offenders. These
dispositions will be forwarded to the State Police for
inclusion in their Computerized Criminal History (CCH)
database. Once the sex offender registry is automated, the
State Police will have access to sex offender dispositions
for their registry via CCH.

The Louisiana Supreme Court is working with clerks of court
statewide to collect electronic criminal dispositions for
their registry. Sex offenders are flagged and charge codes
annotated within the database. When the State identifier
(SID), Arrest Tracking Number (ATN), and personal
identifiers are provided, records are matched with those in
the CCH database.

CMIS is currently automating the process for transferring
sex offender case dispositions received from the clerks of
court to the State Police CCH database. Development of this
software connection, known as the Law Enforcement Message
Switch (LEMS) Metro Server, is complete. There is an ongoing
problem of collecting complete information - for example,
ATN, SID, personal identifiers - from those parishes that do
not have integrated criminal justice information systems.
This limits the ability to match sex offender records
collected by CMIS with records currently in CCH.

Welfare Reform

The Department of Social Services (DSS) forwards information
from its automated case registry directly to the Federal
government, as required by the Welfare Reform Act of 1996;
this includes information from the State's Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families, Child Support, and Food
Stamps programs.

The courts or respective agencies provide, via facsimile,
information on judicial proceedings relating to: paternity
and support cases in which welfare services are provided by
a State agency; drug-use felons; or drug case probation and
parole violators. A "prison match" is also made between DSS
and the Department of Corrections (DOC) on incarcerated
prisoners.

Child support is collected by the Courts, with information
faxed to DSS.

2. How much understanding is there among judicial officials
of the requirements of the law?

LPOR

In conjunction with the statewide implementation of the
LPOR, educational seminars were provided in nine regional
sites across the State during 1999. These seminars addressed
both State and Federal statutes related to the use of
Louisiana Uniform Abuse Prevention Order Forms and the
criteria for entry of these orders into the registry.
Another 10 educational seminars are planned for calendar
year 2000, with additional material presented on legislative
changes made during the recent session. Additionally,
training was recently given to judges attending the
Louisiana Judicial College Summer School. The LPOR staff
will provide more individual training sessions for the
judiciary, law enforcement, probation and parole, district
attorneys, and victims services in the future.

Sex Offenders

Ongoing judicial training is required for judicial officials
to understand both Federal and State requirements for the
registration of convicted sex offenders. ***Footnote134: La.
Acts 1997, No. 1147.***

Welfare Reform

Ongoing training is required for judicial officials to
understand both Federal and State requirements, and training
is ongoing at various conferences both locally and
nationally.

3. What were the major events that lead to the current
status?
LPOR

a) Legislation: State legislation passed during the regular
1997 session mandated that (1) the JAO create the protective
order registry and develop uniform order forms, and (2) all
courts use these forms and transmit orders to the registry
in a timely manner. ***Footnote135: LA. REV. STAT. ANN. tit.
46Sec. 2136.2.***

b) LPOR uniform forms: Over a period of 18 months, uniform
order forms were drafted, tested, and revised.

c) Purchase of technology: The necessary hardware and
software have been purchased and customized for initial
automation. Additional purchases have been made to complete
the system's connectivity to the majority of the district
courts. Automation for the remaining district and city
courts is ongoing.

d) Pilot courts: Nine pilot courts were enlisted to test the
uniform order forms and transmission procedures.
Participants at these sites provided an ongoing source of
project feedback.

e) Steering committee: A statewide steering committee was
selected to provide initial development and ongoing guidance
and direction for the LPOR. This group - which meets
quarterly - is comprised of representatives of a number of
statewide associations, including the district judges, city
court judges, clerks of court, court administrators,
prosecutors, sheriffs, chiefs of police, and victim
services.

f) Coordinating council. Led by a State senator, the
coordinating council is comprised of a Supreme Court justice
and representatives of a number of statewide associations,
joined together for the purpose of exploring and changing
State laws related to domestic violence and the LPOR via the
legislative process.

g) Linkage with other databases: Connections among the LPOR,
State Police CCH database, and the NCIC POF are nearly
complete. Work is underway to develop software to batch
transfer files to the NCIC POF database.

Sex Offenders

Statewide legislation was developed to meet Federal mandates
for the Jacob Wetterling and Pam Lychner laws.
***Footnote136: Supra at note 129.***

a) Federal grant funding approved. National Criminal History
Improvement Program (NCHIP) funding was obtained for CMIS
via the LCLE. This funding has allowed CMIS to purchase
criminal case management systems for all of the district
clerks of court. Additional monies are required to finish
the purchases of computer systems for 49 city and 3 parish
courts. At present, purchase costs of city and parish
computer systems are unknown. Criminal case management
systems allow clerks of court to forward electronic
dispositions to CMIS for transmittal to the State Police,
the sex offender registry (when automated) via CCH, and
ultimately to the National Sex Offender Registry.

b) Federal grant and State funding approved for the Law
Enforcement Message Switch (LEMS). LEMS is a software
connection between CMIS and DPS that will allow the
electronic transmission of sex offender dispositions from
CMIS to the State Police. State Police will also have the
ability to query the CMIS registry. Total cost for the LEMS
software was approximately $300,000.

c) Charge code project. Funded by CMIS. A current,
standardized Revised Louisiana Statute electronic charge
code file is being developed for CMIS and courts statewide
to utilize in their databases for an accurate accounting of
defendant charges, including sex offenders. Cost for this
project was approximately $10,000.

d) Courts of Appeal Reporting System (CARS). CMIS is working
with the appellate courts in the design of their new systems
and the collection of common data elements for both the
appellate courts and CMIS, to include information about sex
offenders. The first step in the new version of CARS - an
agreement on the reporting of Case Types, Disposition, and
Manner of Disposition - has been completed. CMIS will begin
the next stage of this process shortly; it involves
developing the common data elements and event triggers for
the automation of CARS.

Welfare Reform

Authorization by law to employ hearing officers and staff
have increased child support collections and the provision
of related information.

4. What strengths and weaknesses did the State judiciary and
trial courts bring to the problem of implementation?

LPOR

Strengths: (1) Clerks of court, prosecutors, law
enforcement, judges and others have worked closely with the
LPOR team in the development of standardized orders that are
currently being placed in courts statewide; (2) Strong
commitment to address the issue of domestic violence; (3) A
legislature willing to enact legislation that would
allow/mandate effective change; and 4) $340,000 in annual
State appropriations.

Weaknesses: Lack of funding, especially in the area of
recurring expenses; for example, digital connections to the
courts, computer maintenance, and increased manpower
requirements in the clerks of court offices. In addition,
present funding only supports implementing a wide area
network for 43 of 64 district courts. 

Sex Offenders

Weaknesses: Insufficient Federal and State funding to
implement requirements for collection of dispositions for
tracking sex offenders. Additionally, ongoing funding is
necessary for the maintenance of information systems and a
data analyst to review data quality. Additionally, a lack of
funding for ongoing training for the judiciary in Federal
and State laws pertaining to sex offenders poses a problem.
(It is anticipated that an additional $1,168,902 will be
required to automate the 58 city courts and 3 parish courts,
based on an average of $19,162 spent per district court.)

Welfare Reform

Strengths: Communication and the establishment of operating
networks to facilitate the discussion of relevant issues and
resolution.

Weaknesses: Need for increased communication between the
Courts and DSS on matters of welfare reform.

5. At what point did the judiciary become involved/aware of
the issues?

LPOR

The State judiciary was aware of the problem prior to
inception of the project. Lack of funding has always been
and continues to be a problem. Awareness of the issues
regarding the Federal statutory requirements for
participation in the national database for protection orders
has increased substantially as the project has evolved.

Pilot trial courts have been more involved with day-to-day
activities and are aware of the issues, but the judiciary as
a whole has been aware of the need for this project for some
time. This is rapidly changing as training seminars are
given and implementation takes place across the State.

Sex Offenders

Passage of State law in August 1997. ***Footnote137:
Ibid.***

Welfare Reform

Ongoing training and workshops are provided via seminars,
judicial college training, and continuing legal education
(CLE) to inform the judiciary (including juvenile and family
court judges) of the Welfare Reform Act of 1996. It is an
issue of which the judiciary has been informed.

6. What were the technical resources required to meet the
requirements and how were they distributed within the
judiciary? 

LPOR

In order to create the registry and establish the necessary
connections between LPOR, the State Police CCH database, and
the NCIC POF, it was necessary for the JAO to purchase
computer hardware and software. In addition, it was
necessary to obtain technical assistance to design the
database and establish the linkages between systems as
follows:

a) Law Enforcement Message Switch (LEMS). LEMS is a secure
software connection between CMIS and the State Police
database that gives the judiciary the ability to query the
LPOR, NCIC POF, State Police CCH file, and Department of
Motor Vehicles (DMV) files. It also gives both the State
Police and NCIC the ability to query the LPOR. LEMS will
also upload LPOR files via batch to NCIC (in progress). This
required a significant effort on the part of the CMIS
assistant director working with the vendor to design and
implement the system. Additional State funding of $250
million was provided to accomplish the development of this
connectivity software.

b) Wide Area Network (WAN) hardware within CMIS. This gives
the judiciary the ability to enter the CMIS secure network
via LEMS to query the LPOR, NCIC POF, CCH, and DMV
databases, in addition to sex offender dispositions.
Additional hardware and software are now being acquired to
allow the courts to access these files via either dial-in or
WAN connections. Additional funding is required for
recurring expenses, such as modem maintenance, software
maintenance, and upgrades.

c) Digital connections to allow access to CMIS and DPS.
These connections allow individual courthouses access to the
above information in both CMIS and State Police databases.
In addition to building a secure network infrastructure at
the CMIS office, digital circuits and routers are required
for the 64 district courts, 48 city courts, and 3 parish
courts. Additional funding is required for modems and
software maintenance and upgrades as recurring expenses.

d) Development of LPOR Oracle software. The assistance of an
Oracle consultant and two CMIS database programmers was
required to design and develop LPOR software to capture
protective orders. Additional consultation will be
necessary, along with funding, as updates, maintenance or
law changes occur.

e) LPOR project management and development. In addition to
the LPOR director and supporting staff (data input
supervisor and three data input operators), technical
assistance for CMIS includes: CMIS director, CMIS assistant
director, two CMIS database programmers, and a network
specialist.

Sex Offenders

(See more detailed explanation and costs under LPOR.)

a) LEMS connection between CMIS and State Police. (Cost was
approximately $300,000).

b) Criminal case management systems distributed to Louisiana
clerks of court.

c) WAN hardware within CMIS. Gives judiciary the ability to
enter a secure network to query CMIS for sex offender
dispositions.

d) Digital connections to allow access to CMIS and DPS.
Allows individual courthouses access to sex offender
dispositions in both the CMIS and State Police databases.

Welfare Reform

The project is ongoing and conducted in tandem with Family
Assistance Aid to Needy Families requirements.
***Footnote138: LA. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 46ASec. 231.***
Resource assessments and funding primarily is undertaken at
the local level, and no composite assessment is available.

7. Who provided the leadership in meeting the requirements?

LPOR

Supreme Court Justice Catherine D. Kimball, who is Chair of
the CMIS project; Chief Justice Pascal F. Calogero, Jr.;
Gov. Mike Foster; State Sen. John L. Dardenne, Jr.; the
Clerks of Court; and the JAO have provided the leadership in
meeting the Federal requirements with regard to protection
orders entered into the registry. In addition, the
Department of Public Safety/State Police Telecommunications
Department has worked closely with the JAO/CMIS staff to
move the project forward to statewide implementation.

Sex Offenders

a) Louisiana Supreme Court and CMIS staff from the JAO.

b) State Police for the Sex Offender Registry.

Welfare Reform

Madeline Bagneris, Secretary, and Gordon Hood, Director,
DSS; and Dr. Hugh M. Collins, Judicial Administrator,
Supreme Court of Louisiana.

8. Where did the financial, technical, management, and
administrative resources come from in addressing the problem
(Federal, State, local)?

LPOR
Tables 1, 2, and 3 illustrate the startup funding, one-time
funding shortfalls and annual recurring costs of the LPOR.

Table 1: LPOR Startup Funding

Purpose  - Source  - Amount

Develop LPOR (salaries, travel, software, seminars,
equipment, contractual, etc.)
NCHIP (Federal)
698,605

Develop LEMS interface software
Sex Offender - LCLE (Federal)
94,401

Purchase equipment for local and wide area network (includes
43 district courts)
Violence Against Women Act (VAWA, Federal)
352,086

Equipment purchases, contractual costs, and training
seminars
VAWA
78,777

Training for LPOR implementation
VAWA
32,562

Develop LEMS interface software
State-appropriated
250,000

Cash match for Federal grants (VAWA)
CMIS*
155,205

CMIS Director (2 years @ 50% @ $81,900/year; personnel
benefits @ 17%)
CMIS*
81,900

CMIS Assistant Director (2 years @ 75% @ $71,370/year;
personnel benefits @ 17%)
CMIS*
107,055

CMIS Programmers (2 years @ 60% @ $119,340/year; personnel
benefits @ 17%)
CMIS*
143,208

CMIS Grant Management (1 year @ 25% @ $42,000/year;
personnel benefits @ 17%)
CMIS*
12,285

Purchase equipment for remaining 21 district courts, 49 city
courts, and 3 parish courts (installation included)
Unknown funding source
276,664

*Court-assessed $2 filing fees
Total: ***Footnote139: Does not include recurring unfunded
items, such as digital connections, computer maintenance,
software upgrades and clerk's office staffing.***
$2,282,748

Table 2: Funding Shortfalls (One-time)

Purpose
Source
Amount

Automate 21 district, 49 city, and 3 parish courts (purchase
routers and install digital circuits)
Unknown funding source
243,235

Total:
$243,235

Table 3: Annual Recurring Costs

Purpose
Source
Amount

LPOR Project (salaries, travel, office rent, etc.)
State-appropriated
331,559

Digital circuits (64 district courts, 49 city courts, 3
parish courts)
CMIS* and unknown funding sources
203,062

Local-area network maintenance (CMIS)
CMIS* and unknown funding sources
19,051

Wide-area network (CMIS)
CMIS* and unknown funding sources
30,015

Wide-area network equipment - Routers maintenance (district,
city, and parish courts)
CMIS* and unknown funding sources
64,233

Managed wide-area network
CMIS* and unknown funding sources
187,380

Staff training
CMIS* and unknown funding sources
25,000

*Court-assessed $2 filing fees
Total:
$860,300

The annual recurring costs of $860,300 shown in table 3
minus State-appropriated funding of $331,559 equals the
recurring costs not supported by a funding source of
$528,741.

The CMIS project is operating at a $400,000-per-year
deficit, with resources on hand to support the project,
without considering the recurring costs shown in table 3.
Additional sources of recurring funds are necessary to
ensure the ongoing and future viability of this Louisiana
Protective Order Registry.

Sex Offenders

The figures shown in table 4 are in addition to those
required for the LPOR network. Both systems will use same
network. Note: See table 3 for annual recurring costs not
funded for the maintenance of the statewide network to
district, city, and parish courts.

Table 4: Criminal Disposition Startup Funding

Purpose
Source
Amount
Purchase computer systems for Clerks of Court
NCHIP (Federal)
$1,126,390

Travel to visit clerks
CMIS*
5,000

CMIS Director (2 years @ 25% @ $81,900/year; personnel
benefits @ 17%)
CMIS*
40,950

CMIS Assistant Director (2 years @ 15% @ $71,370/year;
personnel benefits @ 17%)
CMIS*
21,411

CMIS Programmers (2 years @ 60% @ $119,340/year; personnel
benefits @ 17%)
CMIS*
143,208

CMIS Grant and Project Management (2 years @ 75% @
$42,000/year; personnel benefits @ 17%)
CMIS*
63,000

*Court-assessed $2 filing fees
Total: ***Footnote140:
Does not include recurring unfunded items, such as computer
maintenance, software upgrades, and clerk's office
staffing.***

$1,399,959

Welfare Reform

DSS has received Federal support for establishment of its
automated case registry. DSS from the State of Louisiana has
also provided support. Local funds have been moved to those
courts with reporting requirements. 

9. How did the effort to meet these requirements shift the
priorities of the judiciary?

LPOR

While a clearer assessment is more likely once total
implementation is complete and follow-up with the courts is
finished, the appropriation of Federal funds to the
judiciary has clearly allowed it to act on concerns of which
it was aware, but was unable to address (including, but not
limited to, implementation of the LPOR, collection of
statistics, better training, employment of technical and
managerial staff, and purchasing hardware and software).

Sex Offenders

A better assessment will be available once total
implementation is complete. One unaddressed priority is the
need for the Clerks of Court to have increased manpower
resources to enter criminal dispositions in their database
for forwarding to CMIS.

Welfare Reforms

The provision of local funds to local courts allow the
transfer of the necessary data.

10. Which local jurisdictions have had the greatest success
and which the least, and why?

LPOR

Again, while a better assessment is more likely once total
implementation is complete and follow-up is done with the
courts, it is clear that those local jurisdictions that have
the greatest cooperation among the various components of the
information system (that is, integrated systems between law
enforcement, district attorneys, and clerks of court) have
the greatest successes. This is because commitment and
communications allow the transfer of the most complete and
accurate information (for example, Arrest Tracking Numbers,
State IDs, and personal identifiers) throughout the system.
Also, it is clear that a lack of funding in a local
jurisdiction deems it to be among those least successful.

Federal funding has been crucial in allowing CMIS to deploy
equipment and implement digital circuits to some courts.
However, noted is that additional funding assistance will be
necessary to deploy WAN equipment to the remaining courts,
in addition to installing and maintaining digital circuits.

Sex Offenders

The automated system is in its very initial development and
implementation stages and therefore no data are available
upon which to base an assessment. Once the WAN for the State
is in place, a better tool for gauging effectiveness of the
database will be available. 

Welfare Reform

While a better assessment is more likely once total
implementation is complete, it appears those local
jurisdictions with the greatest commitment of resources and
the greatest amount of communication among the affected
parties are the most successful. Those without such
commitments are less successful.

End of file
Jane Bassett 8/18/00